Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180050 February 10, 2010
RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VCTOR F. !ERNAL, a"# RENE O. MEDNA, Petitioners,
vs.
E$ECUTVE SECRETAR% EDUARDO ERMTA, re&re'e"()"* (+e Pre')#e"( o, (+e
P+)-)&&)"e'. Se"a(e o, (+e P+)-)&&)"e', re&re'e"(e# by (+e SENATE PRESDENT. /ou'e
o, Re&re'e"(a()0e', re&re'e"(e# by (+e /OUSE SPEA1ER. GOVERNOR RO!ERT
ACE S. !AR!ERS, re&re'e"()"* (+e 2o(+er &ro0)"3e o, Sur)*ao #e- Nor(e.
GOVERNOR GERALDNE ECLEO VLLAROMAN, re&re'e"()"* (+e "e4 Pro0)"3e o,
D)"a*a( '-a"#', Respondents.
D E C I S I N
PERALTA, J.:
!his is a petition for certiorari under Rule "# of the Rules of Court see$in% to nullif& Republic
Act 'R.A.( No. )*##, other+ise $no+n as An Act Creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands, for
bein% unconstitutional.
Petitioners Rodolfo ,. Navarro, -ictor .. Bernal, and Rene . Medina aver that the& are
ta/pa&ers and residents of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte. !he& have served the Province
of Suri%ao del Norte once as -ice0 ,overnor and 1e1bers of the Provincial Board,
respectivel&. !he& clai1 to have previousl& filed a si1ilar petition, +hich +as dis1issed on
technical %rounds.
2
!he& alle%e that the creation of the Dina%at Islands as a ne+ province, if
uncorrected, perpetuates an ille%al act of Con%ress, and un3ustl& deprives the people of
Suri%ao del Norte of a lar%e chun$ of its territor&, Internal Revenue Allocation and rich
resources fro1 the area.
!he facts are as follo+s4
!he 1other province of Suri%ao del Norte +as created and established under R.A. No. 567"
on 8une 2), 2)"9. !he province is co1posed of three 1ain %roups of islands4 '2( the Mainland
and Suri%ao Cit&: '5( Siar%ao Island and Bucas ,rande: and '*( Dina%at Island, +hich is
co1posed of seven 1unicipalities, na1el&, Basilisa, Ca%dianao, Dina%at, ;ib3o, ;oreto, San
8ose, and !uba3on.
Based on the official 5999 Census of Population and <ousin% conducted b& the National
Statistics ffice 'NS(,
5
the population of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte as of Ma& 2, 5999
+as =72,=2", bro$en do+n as follo+s4
Mainland 572,222
Suri%ao Cit& 227,#*=
Siar%ao Island > Bucas ,rande )*,*#=
Dina%at Island 29",)#2
?nder Section ="2 of R.A. No. 6"29, other+ise $no+n as !he ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, a
province 1a& be created if it has an avera%e annual inco1e of not less than P59 1illion based
on 2))2 constant prices as certified b& the Depart1ent of .inance, and a population of not less
than 5#9,999 inhabitants as certified b& the NS, or a conti%uous territor& of at least 5,999
s@uare $ilo1eters as certified b& the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau. !he territor& need not be
conti%uous if it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities,
+hich do not contribute to the inco1e of the province.
n April *, 5995, the ffice of the President, throu%h its Deput& E/ecutive Secretar& for
;e%al Affairs, advised the San%%unian% Panlala+i%an of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte of
the deficient population in the proposed Province of Dina%at Islands.
*
In 8ul& 599*, the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte conducted a special census,
+ith the assistance of an NS District Census Coordinator, in the Dina%at Islands to deter1ine
its actual population in support of the house bill creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands. !he
special census &ielded a population count of *62,#6" inhabitants in the proposed province. !he
NS, ho+ever, did not certif& the result of the special census. n 8ul& *9, 599*, Suri%ao del
Norte Provincial ,overnor Robert ;&ndon S. Barbers issued Procla1ation No. 92, +hich
declared as official, for all purposes, the 599* Special Census in Dina%at Islands sho+in% a
population of *62,#6".
=
!he Bureau of ;ocal ,overn1ent .inance certified that the avera%e annual inco1e of the
proposed Province of Dina%at Islands for calendar &ear 5995 to 599* based on the 2))2
constant prices +as P75,")",=**.5*. !he land area of the proposed province is 795.25 s@uare
$ilo1eters.
n Au%ust 2=, 599" and Au%ust 57, 599", the Senate and the <ouse of Representatives,
respectivel&, passed the bill creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands. It +as approved and
enacted into la+ as R.A. No. )*## on ctober 5, 599" b& President ,loria Macapa%al0Arro&o.
n Dece1ber 5, 599", a plebiscite +as held in the 1other Province of Suri%ao del Norte to
deter1ine +hether the local %overn1ent units directl& affected approved of the creation of the
Province of Dina%at Islands into a distinct and independent province co1prisin% the
1unicipalities of Basilisa, Ca%dianao, Dina%at, ;ib3o 'Albor(, ;oreto, San 8ose, and !uba3on.
!he result of the plebiscite &ielded "),)=* affir1ative votes and "*,#95 ne%ative votes.
#
n Dece1ber *, 599", the Plebiscite Provincial Board of Canvassers proclai1ed that the
creation of Dina%at Islands into a separate and distinct province +as ratified and approved b&
the 1a3orit& of the votes cast in the plebiscite.
"
n 8anuar& 5", 5996, a ne+ set of provincial officials too$ their oath of office follo+in% their
appoint1ent b& President ,loria Macapa%al0Arro&o. Another set of provincial officials +as
elected durin% the s&nchroniAed national and local elections held on Ma& 2=, 5996. n 8ul& 2,
5996, the elected provincial officials too$ their oath of office: hence, the Province of Dina%at
Islands be%an its corporate e/istence.
6
Petitioners contended that the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands under R.A. No. )*##
is not valid because it failed to co1pl& +ith either the population or land area re@uire1ent
prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Petitioners pra&ed that R.A. No. )*## be declared unconstitutional, and that all subse@uent
appoint1ents and elections to the ne+ vacant positions in the ne+l& created Province of
Dina%at Islands be declared null and void. !he& also pra&ed for the return of the 1unicipalities
of the Province of Dina%at Islands and the return of the for1er districts to the 1other Province
of Suri%ao del Norte.
Petitioners raised the follo+in% issues4
I
B<E!<ER R N! REP?B;IC AC! N. )*##, CREA!IN, !<E NEB PR-INCE .
DINA,A! IS;ANDS, CMP;IED BI!< !<E CNS!I!?!IN AND S!A!?!RC
RED?IREMEN!S ?NDER SEC!IN ="2 . REP?B;IC AC! N. 62"9, !<ERBISE
ENBN AS !<E ;CA; ,-ERNMEN! CDE . 2))2.
II
B<E!<ER R N! !<E CREA!IN . DINA,A! AS A NEB PR-INCE BC !<E
RESPNDEN!S IS AN AC! . ,ERRCMANDERIN,.
III
B<E!<ER R N! !<E RES?;! . !<E P;EBISCI!E IS CREDIB;E AND !R?;C
RE.;EC!S !<E MANDA!E . !<E PEP;E.
7
In her Me1orandu1, respondent ,overnor ,eraldine B. Ecleo0-illaro1an of the Province of
Dina%at Islands raises procedural issues. She contends that petitioners do not have the le%al
standin% to @uestion the constitutionalit& of the creation of the Province of Dina%at, since the&
have not been directl& in3ured b& its creation and are +ithout substantial interest over the
1atter in controvers&. Moreover, she alle%es that the petition is 1oot and acade1ic because
the e/istence of the Province of Dina%at Islands has alread& co11enced: hence, the petition
should be dis1issed.
!he contention is +ithout 1erit.
In Coconut il Refiners Association, Inc. v. !orres,
)
the Court held that in cases of para1ount
i1portance +here serious constitutional @uestions are involved, the standin% re@uire1ents
1a& be rela/ed and a suit 1a& be allo+ed to prosper even +here there is no direct in3ur& to the
part& clai1in% the ri%ht of 3udicial revie+. In the sa1e vein, +ith respect to other alle%ed
procedural fla+s, even assu1in% the e/istence of such defects, the Court, in the e/ercise of its
discretion, brushes aside these technicalities and ta$es co%niAance of the petition considerin%
its i1portance and in $eepin% +ith the dut& to deter1ine +hether the other branches of the
%overn1ent have $ept the1selves +ithin the li1its of the Constitution.
29
.urther, supervenin% events, +hether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court fro1
renderin% a decision if there is a %rave violation of the Constitution.
22
!he courts +ill decide a
@uestion other+ise 1oot and acade1ic if it is capable of repetition, &et evadin% revie+.
25
!he 1ain issue is +hether or not R.A. No. )*## violates Section 29, Article F of the
Constitution.
Petitioners contend that the proposed Province of Dina%at Islands is not @ualified to beco1e a
province because it failed to co1pl& +ith the land area or the population re@uire1ent, despite
its co1pliance +ith the inco1e re@uire1ent. It has a total land area of onl& 795.25 s@uare
$ilo1eters, +hich falls short of the statutor& re@uire1ent of at least 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters.
Moreover, based on the NS 5999 Census of Population, the total population of the proposed
Province of Dina%at Islands is onl& 29",)#2, +hile the statutor& re@uire1ent is a population of
at least 5#9,999 inhabitants.
Petitioners alle%e that in enactin% R.A. No. )*## into la+, the <ouse of Representatives and
the Senate erroneousl& relied on para%raph 5 of Article ) of the Rules and Re%ulations
I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2, +hich states that GHtIhe land area
re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islands.G
2*
!he precedin% italiciAed provision contained in the I1ple1entin% Rules and
Re%ulations is not e/pressl& or i1pliedl& stated as an e/e1ption to the land area re@uire1ent
in Section ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Petitioners assert that +hen the I1ple1entin%
Rules and Re%ulations conflict +ith the la+ that the& see$ to i1ple1ent, the la+ prevails.
n the other hand, respondents contend in their respective Me1oranda that the Province of
Dina%at Islands 1et the le%al standard for its creation.1avvphi1
.irst, the Bureau of ;ocal ,overn1ent .inance certified that the avera%e annual inco1e of the
proposed Province of Dina%at Islands for the &ears 5995 to 599* based on the 2))2 constant
prices +as P75,")",=**.5#.
Second, the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau certified that thou%h the land area of the Province of
Dina%at Islands is 795.25 s@uare $ilo1eters, it is co1posed of one or 1ore islands: thus, it is
e/e1pt fro1 the re@uired land area of 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters under para%raph 5 of Article )
of the Rules and Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
!hird, in the special census conducted b& the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte,
+ith the assistance of a District Census Coordinator of the NS, the nu1ber of inhabitants in
the Province of Dina%at Islands as of 599*, or al1ost three &ears before the enact1ent of R.A.
No. )*## in 599", +as *62,#6", +hich is 1ore than the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants.
In his Me1orandu1, respondent ,overnor Ace S. Barbers contends that althou%h the result of
the special census conducted b& the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte on Dece1ber
5, 599* +as never certified b& the NS, it is credible since it +as conducted +ith the aid of a
representative of the NS. <e alle%ed that the lac$ of certification b& the NS +as cured b&
the presence of NS officials, +ho testified durin% the deliberations on <ouse Bill No. 77=
creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands, and +ho @uestioned neither the conduct of the
special census nor the validit& of the result.
T+e Ru-)"* o, (+e Cour(
!he petition is %ranted.
!he constitutional provision on the creation of a province in Section 29, Article F of the
Constitution states4
SEC. 29. No province, cit&, 1unicipalit&, or baran%a& 1a& be created, divided, 1er%ed,
abolished, or its boundar& substantiall& altered, e/cept in accordance +ith the criteria
established in the local %overn1ent code and sub3ect to approval b& a 1a3orit& of the votes
cast in a plebiscite in the political units directl& affected.G
2=
Pursuant to the Constitution, the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 prescribed the criteria for
the creation of a province, thus4
SEC. ="2. Requisites for Creation. 00 'a( A province 1a& be created if it has an avera%e annual
inco1e, as certified b& the Depart1ent of .inance, of not less than !+ent& 1illion pesos
'P59,999,999.99( based on 2))2 constant prices and either of the follo+in% re@uisites4
'i( a conti%uous territor& of at least t+o thousand '5,999( s@uare
$ilo1eters, as certified b& the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau: or
'ii( a population of not less than t+o hundred fift& thousand '5#9,999(
inhabitants as certified b& the National Statistics ffice4
Provided, !hat, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and
inco1e of the ori%inal unit or units at the ti1e of said creation to less than the
1ini1u1 re@uire1ents prescribed herein.
'b( !he territor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o '5( or 1ore islands or is
separated b& a chartered cit& or cities +hich do not contribute to the inco1e of the
province.
'c( !he avera%e annual inco1e shall include the inco1e accruin% to the %eneral
fund, e/clusive of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non0recurrin% inco1e.
2#
As a clarification of the territorial re@uire1ent, the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code re@uires
a conti%uous territor& of at least 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters, as certified b& the ;ands
Mana%e1ent Bureau. <o+ever, the territor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o '5( or
1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities that do not contribute to the inco1e of
the province.
If a proposed province is co1posed of t+o or 1ore islands, does Gterritor&,G under Sec. ="2 of
the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, include not onl& the land 1ass above the +ater, but also that
+hich is beneath itJ
!o ans+er the @uestion above, the discussion in !an v. Co11ission on Elections
'CME;EC(
2"
is enli%htenin%.
In Tan v. COMELEC, petitioners therein contended that Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. 77#, creatin% the
ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, +as unconstitutional for it +as not in accord +ith Art. FI,
Sec. * of the Constitution, and Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Althou%h +hat +as applicable then +as the 2)6* Constitution and the for1er ;ocal
,overn1ent Code, the provisions pertinent to the case are substantiall& si1ilar to the
provisions in this case.
Art. FI, Sec. * of the 2)6* Constitution provides4
Sec. *. No province, cit&, 1unicipalit& or barrio 'baran%a& in the 2)76 Constitution( 1a& be
created, divided, 1er%ed, abolished, or its boundar& substantiall& altered e/cept in accordance
+ith the criteria established in the local %overn1ent code, and sub3ect to the approval b& a
1a3orit& of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.
!he re@uisites for the creation of a province in Sec. 2)6 of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6 are
si1ilar to the re@uisites in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2, but the
re@uire1ents for population and territor&Kland area are lo+er no+, +hile the inco1e
re@uire1ent is hi%her. Sec. 2)6 of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent
Code, provides4
SEC. 2)6.LRe@uisites for Creation.LA province 1a& be created if it has a territor& of at least
three thousand five hundred s@uare $ilo1eters, a population of at least five hundred thousand
persons, an avera%e esti1ated annual inco1e, as certified b& the Ministr& of .inance, of not
less than ten 1illion pesos for the last three consecutive &ears, and its creation shall not reduce
the population and inco1e of the 1other province or provinces at the ti1e of said creation to
less than the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ents under this section. !he territor& need not be conti%uous if
it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands.
!he avera%e esti1ated annual inco1e shall include the inco1e allotted for both the %eneral
and infrastructure funds, e/clusive of trust funds, transfers and nonrecurrin% inco1e.
26
In Tan v. COMELEC, petitioners therein filed a case for Prohibition for the purpose of
stoppin% the CME;EC fro1 conductin% the plebiscite scheduled on 8anuar& *, 2)7". Since
the Court +as in recess, it +as unable to consider the petition on ti1e. Petitioners filed a
supple1ental pleadin%, averrin% that the plebiscite sou%ht to be restrained b& the1 +as held as
scheduled, but there +ere still serious issues raised in the case affectin% the le%alit&,
constitutionalit& and validit& of such e/ercise +hich should properl& be passed upon and
resolved b& the Court.
At issue in Tan +as the land area of the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, and the validit& of
the plebiscite, +hich did not include voters of the parent Province of Ne%ros ccidental, but
onl& those livin% +ithin the territor& of the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte.
!he Court held that the plebiscite should have included the people livin% in the area of the
proposed ne+ province and those livin% in the parent province. <o+ever, the Court did not
direct the conduct of a ne+ plebiscite, because the factual and le%al basis for the creation of
the ne+ province did not e/ist as it failed to satisf& the land area re@uire1ent: hence, Batas
Pa1bansa Bl%. 77#, creatin% the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, +as declared
unconstitutional. !he Court found that the land area of the ne+ province +as onl& about 5,7#"
s@uare $ilo1eters, +hich +as belo+ the statutor& re@uire1ent then of *,#99 s@uare $ilo1eters.
Respondents in Tan insisted that +hen the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code spea$s of the re@uired
territor& of the province to be created, +hat is conte1plated is not onl& the land area, but also
the land and +ater over +hich the said province has 3urisdiction and control. !he respondents
sub1itted that in this re%ard, the 1ar%inal sea +ithin the three 1ile li1it should be considered
in deter1inin% the e/tent of the territor& of the ne+ province.
!he Court stated that GHsIuch an interpretation is strained, incorrect and fallacious.G
27
It held4
!he last sentence of the first para%raph of Section 2)6 is 1ost revealin%. As so stated therein
the Gterritor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands.G !he use of the +ord
territor& in this particular provision of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code and in the ver& last
sentence thereof, clearl&, reflects that Gterritor&G as therein used, has reference onl& to the 1ass
of land area and e/cludes the +aters over +hich the political unit e/ercises control.
Said sentence states that the Gterritor& need not be conti%uous.G Conti%uous 1eans 'a( in
ph&sical contact: 'b( touchin% alon% all or 1ost of one side: 'c( near, HnIe/t, or ad3acent
'BebsterMs Ne+ Borld Dictionar&, 2)65 Ed., p. *96(. GConti%uous,G +hen e1plo&ed as an
ad3ective, as in the above sentence, is onl& used +hen it describes ph&sical contact, or a
touchin% of sides of t+o solid 1asses of 1atter. !he 1eanin% of particular ter1s in a statute
1a& be ascertained b& reference to +ords associated +ith or related to the1 in the statute
'Ani1al Rescue ;ea%ue vs. Assessors, 2*7 A.;.R., p. 229(. !herefore, in the conte/t of the
sentence above, +hat need not be Gconti%uousG is the Gterritor&G L the ph&sical 1ass of land
area. !here +ould arise no need for the le%islators to use the +ord conti%uous if the& had
intended that the ter1 Gterritor&G e1brace not onl& land area but also territorial +aters. It can
be safel& concluded that the +ord territor& in the first para%raph of Section 2)6 is 1eant to be
s&non&1ous +ith Gland areaG onl&. !he +ords and phrases used in a statute should be %iven
the 1eanin% intended b& the le%islature '75 C.8.S., p. "*"(. !he sense in +hich the +ords are
used furnished the rule of construction 'In re Binton ;u1ber Co., "* p. 5d., p. ""=(.
2)
!he discussion of the Court in Tan on the definition and usa%e of the ter1s Gterritor&,G and
Gconti%uous,G and the 1eanin% of the provision, G!he territor& need not be conti%uous if it
co1prises t+o or 1ore islands,G contained in Sec. 2)6 of the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code,
+hich provides for the re@uisites in the creation of a ne+ province, is applicable in this case
since there is no reason for a chan%e in their respective definitions, usa%e, or 1eanin% in its
counterpart provision in the present ;ocal ,overn1ent Code contained in Sec. ="2 thereof.
!he territorial re@uire1ent in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code is adopted in the Rules and
Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 'IRR(,
59
thus4
AR!. ). Provinces.L'a( Re@uisites for creationLA province shall not be created unless the
follo+in% re@uisites on inco1e and either population or land area are present4
'2( Inco1e L An avera%e annual inco1e of not less than !+ent& Million Pesos
'P59,999,999.99( for the i11ediatel& precedin% t+o '5( consecutive &ears based on
2))2 constant prices, as certified b& D.. !he avera%e annual inco1e shall include
the inco1e accruin% to the %eneral fund, e/clusive of special funds, special
accounts, transfers, and nonrecurrin% inco1e: and
'5( Population or land area 0 Population +hich shall not be less than t+o hundred
fift& thousand '5#9,999( inhabitants, as certified b& National Statistics ffice: or
land area +hich 1ust be conti%uous +ith an area of at least t+o thousand '5,999(
s@uare $ilo1eters, as certified b& ;MB. !he territor& need not be conti%uous if it
co1prises t+o '5( or 1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities +hich
do not contribute to the inco1e of the province. !he land area re@uire1ent shall not
appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore islands. !he
territorial 3urisdiction of a province sou%ht to be created shall be properl& identified
b& 1etes and bounds.
<o+ever, the IRR +ent be&ond the criteria prescribed b& Section ="2 of the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code +hen it added the italiciAed portion above statin% that GHtIhe land area
re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islands.G No+here in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code is the said provision stated or i1plied.
?nder Section ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, the onl& instance +hen the territorial or
land area re@uire1ent need not be co1plied +ith is +hen there is alread& co1pliance +ith the
population re@uire1ent. !he Constitution re@uires that the criteria for the creation of a
province, includin% an& e/e1ption fro1 such criteria, 1ust all be +ritten in the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code.
52
!here is no dispute that in case of discrepanc& bet+een the basic la+ and
the rules and re%ulations i1ple1entin% the said la+, the basic la+ prevails, because the rules
and re%ulations cannot %o be&ond the ter1s and provisions of the basic la+.
55
<ence, the Court holds that the provision in Sec. 5, Art. ) of the IRR statin% that GHtIhe land
area re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islandsG is null and void.
Respondents, represented b& the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral, ar%ue that rules and
re%ulations have the force and effect of la+ as lon% as the& are %er1ane to the ob3ects and
purposes of the la+. !he& contend that the e/e1ption fro1 the land area re@uire1ent of 5,999
s@uare $ilo1eters is %er1ane to the purpose of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code to develop
political and territorial subdivisions into self0reliant co11unities and 1a$e the1 1ore
effective partners in the attain1ent of national %oals.
5*
!he& assert that in <ol& Spirit
<o1eo+ners Association, Inc. v. Defensor,
5=
the Court declared as valid the i1ple1entin%
rules and re%ulations of a statute, even thou%h the ad1inistrative a%enc& added certain
provisions in the i1ple1entin% rules that +ere not found in the la+.
In <ol& Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, the provisions in the i1ple1entin%
rules and re%ulations, +hich +ere @uestioned b& petitioner therein, 1erel& filled in the details
in accordance +ith a $no+n standard. !he la+ that +as @uestioned +as R.A. No. )596,
other+ise $no+n as GNational ,overn1ent Center 'N,C( <ousin% and ;and ?tiliAation Act
of 599*.G It +as therein declared that the Gpolic& of the State H+asI to secure the land tenure of
the urban poor. !o+ard this end, lands located in the N,C, DueAon Cit& shall be utiliAed for
housin%, socioecono1ic, civic, educational, reli%ious and other purposes.G Section # of R.A.
No. )596 created the National ,overn1ent Center Ad1inistration Co11ittee, +hich +as
tas$ed to ad1inister, for1ulate the %uidelines and policies and i1ple1ent the land disposition
of the areas covered b& the la+.
Petitioners therein contended that +hile Sec. *.5 'a.2( of the IRR fi/ed the sellin% rate of a lot
at P699.99 per s@. 1., R.A. No. )596 did not provide for the price. In addition, Sec. *.5 'c.2(
of the IRR penaliAes a beneficiar& +ho fails to e/ecute a contract to sell +ithin si/ '"( 1onths
fro1 the approval of the subdivision plan b& i1posin% a price escalation, +hile there is no
such penalt& i1posed b& R.A. No. )596. !hus, the& conclude that the assailed provisions
conflict +ith R.A. No. )596 and should be nullified.
In <ol& Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc., the Court held4
Bhere a rule or re%ulation has a provision not e/pressl& stated or contained in the statute
bein% i1ple1ented, that provision does not necessaril& contradict the statute. A le%islative rule
is in the nature of subordinate le%islation, desi%ned to i1ple1ent a pri1ar& le%islation b&
providin% the details thereof. All that is re@uired is that the re%ulation should be %er1ane to
the ob3ects and purposes of the la+: that the re%ulation be not in contradiction to but in
confor1it& +ith the standards prescribed b& the la+.
In Section # of R.A. No. )596, the Co11ittee is %ranted the po+er to ad1inister, formulate
guidelines and policies, and i1ple1ent the disposition of the areas covered b& the la+.
I1plicit in this authorit& and the statuteNs ob3ective of urban poor housin% is the po+er of the
Co11ittee to for1ulate the 1anner b& +hich the reserved propert& 1a& be allocated to the
beneficiaries. ?nder this broad po+er, the Co11ittee is 1andated to fill in the details such as
the @ualifications of beneficiaries, the sellin% price of the lots, the ter1s and conditions
%overnin% the sale and other $e& particulars necessar& to i1ple1ent the ob3ective of the la+.
!hese details are purposel& o1itted fro1 the statute and their deter1ination is left to the
discretion of the Co11ittee because the latter possesses special $no+led%e and technical
e/pertise over these 1atters.
!he Co11itteeNs authorit& to fi/ the sellin% price of the lots 1a& be li$ened to the rate0fi/in%
po+er of ad1inistrative a%encies. In case of a dele%ation of rate0fi/in% po+er, the onl&
standard +hich the le%islature is re@uired to prescribe for the %uidance of the ad1inistrative
authorit& is that the rate be reasonable and 3ust. <o+ever, it has been held that even in the
absence of an e/press re@uire1ent as to reasonableness, this standard 1a& be i1plied. In this
re%ard, petitioners do not even clai1 that the sellin% price of the lots is unreasonable.
!he provision on the price escalation clause as a penalt& i1posed to a beneficiar& +ho fails to
e/ecute a contract to sell +ithin the prescribed period is also +ithin the Co11itteeNs authorit&
to for1ulate %uidelines and policies to i1ple1ent R.A. No. )596. !he Co11ittee has the
po+er to la& do+n the ter1s and conditions %overnin% the disposition of said lots, provided
that these are reasonable and 3ust. !here is nothin% ob3ectionable about prescribin% a period
+ithin +hich the parties 1ust e/ecute the contract to sell. !his condition can ordinaril& be
found in a contract to sell and is not contrar& to la+, 1orals, %ood custo1s, public order, or
public polic&.
5#
<ence, the provisions in the i1ple1entin% rules and re%ulations that +ere @uestioned in <ol&
Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc. 1erel& filled in the necessar& details to i1ple1ent the
ob3ective of the la+ in accordance +ith a $no+n standard, and +ere thus %er1ane to the
purpose of the la+.
In this case, the pertinent provision in the IRR did not fill in an& detail in accordance +ith a
$no+n standard provided for b& the la+. Instead, the IRR added an e/e1ption to the standard
or criteria prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code in the creation of a province as re%ards
the land area re@uire1ent, +hich e/e1ption is not found in the Code. As such, the provision in
the IRR that the land area re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is
co1posed of one or 1ore islands is not in confor1it& +ith the standard or criteria prescribed
b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code: hence, it is null and void.
Contrar& to the contention of respondents, the e/traneous provision cannot be considered as
%er1ane to the purpose of the la+ to develop territorial and political subdivisions into self0
reliant co11unities because, in the first place, it alread& conflicts +ith the criteria prescribed
b& the la+ in creatin% a territorial subdivision.
.urther, citin% ,alarosa v. -alencia,
5"
the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral contends that the
IRRs issued b& the versi%ht Co11ittee co1posed of 1e1bers of the le%islative and
e/ecutive branches of the %overn1ent are entitled to %reat +ei%ht and respect, as the& are in
the nature of e/ecutive construction.
!he case is not in point. In ,alarosa, the issue +as +hether or not ,alarosa could continue to
serve as a 1e1ber of the Sangguniang a!an be&ond 8une *9, 2))5, the date +hen the ter1
of office of the elective 1e1bers of theSangguniang a!an of Sorso%on e/pired. ,alarosa
+as the incu1bent president of the "atipunang a!an or Association of aranga! Councils
'ABC( of the Municipalit& of Sorso%on, Province of Sorso%on: and +as appointed as a
1e1ber of the Sangguniang a!an 'SB( of Sorso%on pursuant to E/ecutive rder No. *=5 in
relation to Sec. 2=" of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Sec. =)= of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2
56
states that the dul& elected presidents of
the liga Hng mga #aranga!I at the 1unicipal, cit& and provincial levels, includin% the
co1ponent cities and 1unicipalities of Metropolitan Manila, shall serve as e$ officio 1e1bers
of the sangguniang #a!an% sangguniang panglungsod% and sangguniang panlala&igan,
respectivel&. !he& shall serve as such onl& durin% their ter1 of office as presidents of
the liga chapters +hich, in no case, shall be be&ond the ter1 of office of
the sanggunian concerned. !he section, ho+ever, does not fi/ the specific duration of their
ter1 as liga president. !he Court held that this +as left to the b&0la+s of the liga pursuant to
Art. 522'%( of the Rules and Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2.
Moreover, there +as no indication that Secs. =)2
57
and =)= should be %iven retroactive effect
to adversel& affect the presidents of the ABC: hence, the said provisions +ere to be applied
prospectivel&.
!he Court stated that there is no la+ that prohibits ABC presidents fro1 holdin% over as
1e1bers of theSangguniang a!an. n the contrar&, the IRR, prepared and issued b& the
versi%ht Co11ittee upon specific 1andate of Sec. #** of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code,
e/pressl& reco%niAes and %rants the hold0over authorit& to the ABC presidents under Art. 529,
Rule FFIF.
5)
!he Court upheld the application of the hold0over doctrine in the provisions of
the IRR and the issuances of the DI;,, +hose purpose +as to prevent a hiatus in the
%overn1ent pendin% the ti1e +hen the successor 1a& be chosen and inducted into office.
!he Court held that Sec. =)= of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code could not have been intended to
allo+ a %ap in the representation of the #aranga!s, throu%h the presidents of the ABC, in
the sanggunian. Since the ter1 of office of the punong #aranga!s elected in the March 57,
2)7) election and the ter1 of office of the presidents of the ABC had not &et e/pired, and
ta$in% into account the special role conferred upon, and the broader po+ers and functions
vested in the #aranga!s b& the Code, it +as inferred that the Code never intended to deprive
the#aranga!s of their representation in the sangguniang #a!an durin% the interre%nu1 +hen
the liga had &et to be for1all& or%aniAed +ith the election of its officers.
?nder the circu1stances prevailin% in ,alarosa, the Court considered the relevant provisions
in the IRR for1ulated b& the versi%ht Co11ittee and the pertinent issuances of the DI;, in
the nature of e/ecutive construction, +hich +ere entitled to %reat +ei%ht and respect.
Courts deter1ine the intent of the la+ fro1 the literal lan%ua%e of the la+ +ithin the la+Ns
four corners.
*9
If the lan%ua%e of the la+ is plain, clear and una1bi%uous, courts si1pl& appl&
the la+ accordin% to its e/press ter1s.
*2
If a literal application of the la+ results in absurdit&,
i1possibilit& or in3ustice, then courts 1a& resort to e/trinsic aids of statutor& construction li$e
the le%islative histor& of the la+,
*5
or 1a& consider the i1ple1entin% rules and re%ulations and
pertinent e/ecutive issuances in the nature of e/ecutive construction.
In this case, the re@uire1ents for the creation of a province contained in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code are clear, plain and una1bi%uous, and its literal application does not result
in absurdit& or in3ustice. <ence, the provision in Art. )'5( of the IRR e/e1ptin% a proposed
province co1posed of one or 1ore islands fro1 the land0area re@uire1ent cannot be
considered an e/ecutive construction of the criteria prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
It is an e/traneous provision not intended b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code and, therefore, is
null and void.
5+e(+er R.A. No. 6755 3o2&-)e# 4)(+ (+e re8u)re2e"(' o, Se3()o" 9:1 o, (+e Lo3a-
Go0er"2e"( Co#e )" 3rea()"* (+e Pro0)"3e o, D)"a*a( '-a"#'
It is undisputed that R.A. No. )*## co1plied +ith the inco1e re@uire1ent specified b& the
;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Bhat is disputed is its co1pliance +ith the land area or population
re@uire1ent.
R.A. No. )*## e/pressl& states that the Province of Dina%at Islands Gcontains an appro/i1ate
land area of ei%ht& thousand t+o hundred t+elve hectares '79,525 has.( or 795.25 s@.
$1., 1ore or less, includin% <ibuson Island and appro/i1atel& fort&0seven '=6( islets / /
/.G
**
R.A. No. )*##, therefore, failed to co1pl& +ith the land area re@uire1ent of 5,999 s@uare
$ilo1eters.
!he Province of Dina%at Islands also failed to co1pl& +ith the population re@uire1ent of not
less than 5#9,999 inhabitants as certified b& the NS. Based on the 5999 Census of Population
conducted b& the NS, the population of the Province of Dina%at Islands as of Ma& 2, 5999
+as onl& 29",)#2.
Althou%h the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte conducted a special census of
population in Dina%at Islands in 599*, +hich &ielded a population count of *62,999, the result
+as not certified b& the NS as re@uired b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
*=
Moreover,
respondents failed to prove that +ith the population count of *62,999, the population of the
ori%inal unit '1other Province of Suri%ao del Norte( +ould not be reduced to less than the
1ini1u1 re@uire1ent prescribed b& la+ at the ti1e of the creation of the ne+ province.
*#
Respondents contended that the lac$ of certification b& the NS +as cured b& the presence of
the officials of the NS durin% the deliberations on the house bill creatin% the Province of
Dina%at Islands, since the& did not ob3ect to the result of the special census conducted b& the
Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte.
!he contention of respondents does not persuade.
Althou%h the NS representative to the Co11ittee on ;ocal ,overn1ent deliberations dated
Nove1ber 5=, 599# did not ob3ect to the result of the provincial %overn1entNs special census,
+hich +as conducted +ith the assistance of an NS district census coordinator, it +as a%reed
b& the participants that the said result +as not certified b& the NS, +hich is the re@uire1ent
of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Moreover, the NS representative, Statistician II Ma. Solita
C. -er%ara, stated that based on their co1putation, the population re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants +ould be attained b& the Province of Dina%at Islands b& the &ear 59"#. !he
co1putation +as based on the %ro+th rate of the population, e/cludin% 1i%ration.
!he pertinent portion of the deliberation on <ouse Bill No. 77= creatin% the Province of
Dina%at reads4
!<E C<AIRMAN '<on. Alfredo S. ;i1(4 . . . !here is no proble1 +ith the land
area re@uire1ent and to the inco1e re@uire1ent. !he proble1 is +ith the population
re@uire1ent.
/ / / /
No+ because of this @uestion, +e +ould li$e to 1a$e it of record the stand and repl&
of National Statistics ffice. Can +e hear no+ fro1 Ms. Solita -er%araJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Be onl& certif& population based on the counts proclai1ed b& the
President. And in this case, +e onl& certif& the population based on the results of the
5999 census of population and housin%.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Is thatO
MS. -ER,ARA. Sir, as per Batas Pa1bansa, BP 65, +e onl& follo+ $un% ano po
P&on% 1andated b& the la+. So, as 1andated b& the la+, +e onl& certif& those counts
proclai1ed official b& the President.
!<E C<AIRMAN. But the %overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte is headed b& ,overnor
Robert ;&ndon Ace Barbers and the& conducted this census in &ear 599* and &ours
+as conducted in &ear 5999. So, +ithin that ti1e fra1e, three &ears, there could be
an increase in population or transfer of residents, is that possibleJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir, but then +e onl& conduct census of population ever& 29
&ears and +e conduct special census ever& five &ears. So, in this case, 1a&be b&
ne/t &ear, +e +ill be conductin% the 599".
!<E C<AIRMAN. But ne/t &ear +ill be @uite a lon% ti1e, the 1atter is no+ bein%
discussed on the table. So, is that the onl& thin% &ou could sa& that itNs not
authoriAed b& National Statistics fficeJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir. Be have passed a resolutionLorders to the provincial
officesLto our provincial offices statin% that +e can provide assistance in the
conduct, but then +e cannot certif& the result of the conduct as official.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Ma& +e hear fro1 the <onorable ,overnor Robert ;&ndon Ace
Barbers, &our repl& on the state1ent of the representative fro1 National Statistics
ffice.
MR. BARBERS. !han$ &ou, Mr. Chair1an, %ood 1ornin%.
Ces, &our <onor, +e have conducted a special census in the &ear 599*. Be +ere
acco1panied b& one of the e1plo&ees fro1 the Provincial National Statistics ffice.
<o+ever, +e also ad1it the fact that our special census or the special census +e
conducted in 599* +as not validated or certified b& the National Statistics ffice, as
provided b& la+. So, +e ad1it on our part that the certification that I have issued
based on the sub1ission of records of each localit& or each 1unicipalit& fro1
Dina%at IslandHsI +ere true and correct based on our level, not on National Statistics
ffice level.
But +ith that particular ob3ection of E/ecutive Director Ericta on +hat +e have
conducted, I believe, &our <onor, it +ill be, ho+ever, 1oot and acade1ic in ter1s of
the provision under the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code on the re@uire1ents in 1a$in% one
area a province because +hat +e need is a 1ini1u1 of 59 1illion, as stated b& the
<onorable Chair1an and, of course, the land area. No+, in ter1s of the land area,
Dina%at IslandHsI is e/e1pted because /// the area is co1posed of 1ore than one
island. In fact, there are about =6 lo+ tide and hi%h tide, less than =9J ////
!<E C<AIRMAN. !han$ &ou, ,overnor. ////
/ / / /
!<E C<AIRMAN. Althou%h the clai1 of the %overnor is, even if +e hold in
abe&ance this @uestioned re@uire1ent, the other t+o re@uire1ents, as 1andated b&
la+, is alread& achieved Q the inco1e and the land area.
MS. -ER,ARA. Be do not @uestion po the results of an& locall& conducted census,
$asi po tala%an% +e provide assistance +hile the&Nre conductin% their o+n census.
But then, an% re@uire1ent po $asi is, basta +e +ill not certif&L+e +ill not certif&
an& population count as a result noon% $anilan% locall& conducted census. Eh, sa
;ocal ,overn1ent Code po, +e all $no+ na an% /// nire0re@uire nila is a
certification provided b& National Statistics ffice. PCon po P&on% re@uire1ent, di
ba poJ
!<E C<AIRMAN. o. But a certification, even thou%h not issued, cannot %o
a%ainst actual realit& because thatNs 3ust a bureaucratic re@uire1ent. An% ibi% $on%
sabihin, ipa%pala%a&, a couple Q isan% lala$i, isan% babae Qna%1a1ahalan sila. As an
offshoot of this und&in% love, na%$aroon n% 1%a ana$, hindi ba, pero hindi $asal,
itNs a live0in situation. An% tanon% $o lan%, +hether eventuall&, the& %ot 1arried or
not, that love re1ains. And +e cannot den& also the e/istence of the offsprin% out of
that love, di baJ Ea&aON&on lan%. $a&. So, +e 3ust s$ip on thisO.
MS. -ER,ARA. Cour <onor.
REP. EC;E ',;ENDA(. Mr. Chair1an.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Please, Ms. -er%ara.
MS. -ER,ARA. PCon% sinasabi nN&o po, sir, bale +e co1puted the esti1ated
population po n% Dina%at Province for the ne/t &ears. So, based on our co1putation,
1ari0reach po n% Dina%at ProvinceN&on% re@uire1ent na 5#9,999 population b& the
&ear 59"# pa po based on the %ro+th rates durin% the period of O.
!<E C<AIRMAN. 59"#J
MS. -ER,ARA. 59"# po.
/ / / /
!<E C<AIRMAN. . . . H!Ihis is not the center of our ar%u1ent since, as stated b&
the %overnor, $ahit ha hu+a% na 1unan% i0consider iton% population re@uire1ent,
eh, na$ala%pas na1an sila doon sa inco1e and land area, hindi baJ
$a&. ;etNs %ive the floor to Con%ress+o1an Ecleo.
REP. EC;E ',;ENDA(. !han$ &ou, Mr. Chair1an.
!his is in connection +ith the special census. Before this +as done, I +ent to the
NS. I tal$ed to Ad1inistrator Ericta on the population. !hen, I +as told that the
population, official population of Dina%at is 29",999. So, I told the1 that I +ant a
special census to be conducted because there are so 1an& houses that +ere not
reached b& the %overn1ent enu1erators, and I +ant to have 1& o+n or our o+n
special census +ith the help of the provincial %overn1ent. So, that is ho+ it +as
conducted. !hen, the& told 1e that the official population of the proposed province
+ill be on 5929. But at this 1o1ent, that is the official population of 29",999, even
if our special census, +e ca1e up +ith *62,999 plus.
So, that is it.
!<E C<AIRMAN. !han$ &ou, Con%ress+o1an.
Cour insi%hts +ill be reflected in 1& repl& to Senate President Drilon, so that he can
also ans+er the letter of Bishop Cabahu%.
MS. -ER,ARA. Mr. Chair1an, 1a& clarifications lan% din po a$o.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Please.
MS. -ER,ARA. PCon po sa sinasabi na1in% esti1ated population, +e onl& based
the co1putation doon sa %ro+th rate lan% po tala%a, e/cludin% the 1i%ration. ////
MR. C<AIRMAN. NoNn% 1%a residents.
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir, natural %ro+th lan% po tala%a si&a.
*"
!o reiterate, +hen the Dina%at Islands +as proclai1ed a ne+ province on Dece1ber *, 599",
it had an official population of onl& 29",)#2 based on the NS 5999 Census of Population.
;ess than a &ear after the procla1ation of the ne+ province, the NS conducted the 5996
Census of Population. !he NS certified that as of Au%ust 2, 5996, Dina%at Islands had a total
population of onl& 259,72*,
*6
+hich +as still belo+ the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants.
*7
In fine, R.A. No. )*## failed to co1pl& +ith either the territorial or the population
re@uire1ent for the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands.
!he Constitution clearl& 1andates that the creation of local %overn1ent units 1ust follo+ the
criteria established in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
*)
An& dero%ation of or deviation fro1 the
criteria prescribed in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code violates Sec. 29, Art. F of the
Constitution.
=9
<ence, R.A. No. )*## is unconstitutional for its failure to co1pl& +ith the criteria for the
creation of a province prescribed in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Bhether the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands is an act of %err&1anderin%
Petitioners contend that the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands is an act of
%err&1anderin% on the %round that <ouse Bill No. 77= e/cluded Siar%ao Island, +ith a
population of 227,#*= inhabitants, fro1 the ne+ province for co1plete political do1inance b&
Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an. Accordin% to petitioners, if Siar%ao +ere included
in the creation of the ne+ province, the territorial re@uire1ent of 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters
+ould have been easil& satisfied and the enlar%ed area +ould have a bi%%er population of
599,*9# inhabitants based on the 5999 Census of Population b& the NS. But <ouse Bill No.
77= e/cluded Siar%ao Island, because its inclusion +ould result in uncertain political control.
Petitioners aver that, in the past, Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an lost her
con%ressional seat t+ice to a 1e1ber of an influential fa1il& based in Siar%ao. !herefore, the
onl& +a& to co1plete political do1inance is b& %err&1anderin%, to carve a ne+ province in
Dina%at Islands +here the Philippine Benevolent Me1bers Association 'PMBA(, represented
b& the Ecleos, has the nu1bers.
!he ar%u1ent of petitioners is unsubstantiated.
G,err&1anderin%G is a ter1 e1plo&ed to describe an apportion1ent of representative districts
so contrived as to %ive an unfair advanta%e to the part& in po+er.
=2
.r. 8oa@uin ,. Bernas, a
1e1ber of the 2)7" Constitutional Co11ission, defined G%err&1anderin%G as the for1ation
of one le%islative district out of separate territories for the purpose of favorin% a candidate or a
part&.
=5
!he Constitution proscribes %err&1anderin%, as it 1andates each le%islative district to
co1prise, as far as practicable, a conti%uous, co1pact and ad3acent territor&.
=*
As stated b& the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral, the Province of Dina%at Islands consists of
one island and about =6 islets closel& situated to%ether, +ithout the inclusion of separate
territories. It is an unsubstantiated alle%ation that the province +as created to favor
Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an.
Alle%ations of fraud and irre%ularities durin% the plebiscite cannot be resolved in a special
civil action for certiorari
;astl&, petitioners alle%ed that R.A. No. )*## +as ratified b& a doubtful 1andate in a
plebiscite held on Dece1ber 5, 599#, +here the G&es votesG +ere "),)*=*, +hile the Gno
votesG +ere "*,#95. !he& contend that the 299R turnout of voters in the precincts of San 8ose,
Basilisa, Dina%at, Ca%dianao and ;ib3o +as contrar& to hu1an e/perience, and that the results
+ere statisticall& i1probable. Petitioners ad1it that the& did not file an& electoral protest
@uestionin% the results of the plebiscite, because the& lac$ed the 1eans to finance an
e/pensive and protracted election case.
Alle%ations of fraud and irre%ularities in the conduct of a plebiscite are factual in nature:
hence, the& cannot be the sub3ect of this special civil action for certiorari under Rule "# of the
Rules of Court, +hich is a re1ed& desi%ned onl& for the correction of errors of 3urisdiction,
includin% %rave abuse of discretion a1ountin% to lac$ or e/cess of 3urisdiction.
==
Petitioners
should have filed the proper action +ith the Co11ission on Elections. <o+ever, petitioners
ad1ittedl& chose not to avail the1selves of the correct re1ed&.
B<ERE.RE, the petition is ,RAN!ED. Republic Act No. )*##, other+ise $no+n as HAn
Act Creatin% the Province of Dina%at IslandsI, is hereb& declared unconstitutional. !he
procla1ation of the Province of Dina%at Islands and the election of the officials thereof are
declared N?;; and -ID. !he provision in Article ) '5( of the Rules and Re%ulations
I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 statin%, G!he land area re@uire1ent shall
not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore islands,G is declared
N?;; and -ID.
No costs. S RDERED.