11 Kida v. Senate (Term of Office Instructive)

8/10/2019 11 Kida v. Senate (Term of Office Instructive)

1/40

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 196271 October 18, 2011

DATU MICHAE A!AS "IDA, #$ %#& 'er&o$() c('(c#t*, ($+ #$ re're&e$t(t#o$ oMAGUINDANAO -EDERATION O- AUTONOMOUS IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION,INC., HAD I MUHMINA . USMAN, OHN ANTHON/ . IM, AMI ON T. ODIN,ASRIN TIM!O AI/ARI, MU I! M. "A ANG, A IH A SAIDI . SAPI E, "ESSARDAMSIE A!DI , ($+ !ASSAM A UH SAUPI, Petitioners,vs.SENATE O- THE PHI IPPINES, re're&e$te+ b* #t& Pre+e$t UAN PONCE ENRI E,HOUSE O- REPRESENTATI ES, t%r SPEA"ER -E ICIANO !E MONTE,

COMMISSION ON E ECTIONS, t%r #t& C%(#r3($, SI4TO !RI ANTES, R.,PA5UITO OCHOA, R., O #ce o t%e Pre+e$t E ec t# e Secret(r*, - ORENCIOA!AD, R., Secret(r* o ! + et, ($+ RO!ERTO TAN, Tre(& rer o t%e P%#)#''#$e&, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 196 0:

!ASARI D. MAPUPUNO, Petitioner,vs.

SI4TO !RI ANTES, #$ %#& c('(c#t* (& C%(#r3($ o t%e Co33#&o$ o$ E)ect#o$&,- ORENCIO A!AD, R. #$ %#& c('(c#t* (& Secret(r* o t%e De'(rt3e$t o ! + et ($+M($( e3e$t, PAC5UITO OCHOA, R., #$ %#& c('(c#t* (& E ec t# e Secret(r*, UANPONCE ENRI E, #$ %#& c('(c#t* (& Se$(te Pre+e$t, ($+ -E ICIANO !E MONTE, #$%#& c('(c#t* (& S'e(;er o t%e Ho &e o Re're&e$t(t# e&, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 197221

REP. EDCE C. AGMAN, Petitioner,

vs.PA5UITO N. OCHOA, R., #$ %#& c('(c#t* (& t%e E ec t# e Secret(r*, ($+ t%eCOMMISSION ON E ECTIONS, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 197280


2/40

A MARIM CENTI TI AH, DATU CASAN CONDING CANA, ($+ PARTIDODEMO"RATI"O PI IPINO A"AS NG !A/AN !ARO"> !IRAOGO, Petitioner,vs.THE COMMISSION ON E ECTIONS ($+ E4ECUTI E SECRETAR/ PA5UITO N.OCHOA, R., Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 197?:?

ACINTO . PARAS, Petitioner,vs.E4ECUTI E SECRETAR/ PA5UITO N. OCHOA, R., ($+ t%e COMMISSION ONE ECTIONS, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MINORIT/ RIGHTS -ORUM, PHI IPPINES, INC., Respondents-Intervenor.

E C I ! I " N

!RION, J.:

"n #une $%, &%'', Republic Act (RA) No. '%'*$, entitled +An Act Providin for the! nchroni ation of the Elections in the Autono/ous Re ion in Musli/ Mindanao (ARMM) 0ith


3/40

the National and 1ocal Elections and for "ther Purposes+ 0as enacted. 2he la0 reset the ARMMelections fro/ the 3th of Au ust &%'', to the second Monda of Ma &%'$ and ever three ($)

ears thereafter, to coincide 0ith the countr 4s re ular national and local elections. 2he la0 as0ell ranted the President the po0er to +appoint officers-in-char e ("ICs) for the "ffice of theRe ional 5overnor, the Re ional 6ice-5overnor, and the Me/bers of the Re ional 1e islative

Asse/bl , 0ho shall perfor/ the functions pertainin to the said offices until the officials dulelected in the Ma &%'$ elections shall have 7ualified and assu/ed office.+

Even before its for/al passa e, the bills that beca/e RA No. '%'*$ alread spa0ned petitionsa ainst their validit 8 9ouse Bill No. :':; and !enate Bill No. & of RA No. ;


4/40

re ional officials of the ARMM on a date not earlier than ;% da s nor later than ?% da s after itsratification.

RA No. ?%*: (entitled +An Act to !tren then and Expand the "r anic Act for the Autono/ousRe ion in Musli/ Mindanao, A/endin for the Purpose Republic Act No. ;


5/40

a) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition * filed b Rep. Edcel 1a /an as a /e/ber of the9ouse of Representatives a ainst Pa7uito "choa, #r. (in his capacit as the Executive!ecretar ) and the C"ME1EC, doc eted as 5.R. No. '?


6/40

0ell as the failure to adhere to the +elective and representative+ character of the executive andle islative depart/ents of the ARMM. 1astl , the petitioners challen ed the rant to thePresident of the po0er to appoint "ICs to underta e the functions of the elective ARMMofficials until the officials elected under the Ma &%'$ re ular elections shall have assu/edoffice. Corrolaril , the also ar ue that the po0er of appoint/ent also ave the President the

po0er of control over the ARMM, in co/plete violation of !ection ';, Article > of theConstitution.

2he Issues

=ro/ the parties4 sub/issions, the follo0in issues 0ere reco ni ed and ar ued b the parties inthe oral ar u/ents of Au ust ? and ';, &%''@

I. hether the '?3< Constitution /andates the s nchroni ation of elections

II. hether the passa e of RA No. '%'*$ violates !ection &;(&), Article 6I of the '?3 of the '?3< ConstitutionF

I6. hether RA No. '%'*$ violates the autono/ ranted to the ARMM

6. hether the rant of the po0er to appoint "ICs violates@

A. !ection '*, Article > of the '?3< Constitution

B. !ection ';, Article > of the '?3< Constitution

C. !ection '3, Article > of the '?3< Constitution

6I. hether the proposal to hold special elections is constitutional and le al.

e shall discuss these issues in the order the are presented above.

"DR RD1IN5


7/40

e resolve to I!MI!! the petitions and thereb DP9"1 the constitutionalit of RA No.'%'*$ in toto.

I. ! nchroni ation as a reco ni ed constitutional /andate

2he respondent "ffice of the !olicitor 5eneral ("!5) ar ues that the Constitution /andatess nchroni ation, and in support of this position, cites !ections ', & and *, Article >6III(2ransitor Provisions) of the '?3< Constitution, 0hich provides@

!ection '. 2he first elections of Me/bers of the Con ress under this Constitution shall be heldon the second Monda of Ma , '?3


8/40

2hese Constitutional Co//ission exchan es, read 0ith the provisions of the 2ransitorProvisions of the Constitution, all serve as patent indicators of the constitutional /andate to holds nchroni ed national and local elections, startin the second Monda of Ma , '??& and for allthe follo0in elections.

2his Court 0as not left behind in reco ni in the s nchroni ation of the national and localelections as a constitutional /andate. In "s/eGa v. Co//ission on Elections, ': 0e explained@

It is clear fro/ the afore7uoted provisions of the '?3< Constitution that the ter/s of office of!enators, Me/bers of the 9ouse of Representatives, the local officials, the President and the6ice-President have been s nchroni ed to end on the sa/e hour, date and ear H noon of #une$%, '??&.

It is li e0ise evident fro/ the 0ordin of the above-/entioned !ections that the ter/ of synchronization is used s non /ousl as the phrase holding simultaneously since this is the precise intent in ter/inatin their "ffice 2enure on the sa/e day or occasion . 2his co//on

ter/ination date 0ill s nchroni e future elections to once ever three ears (Bernas, theConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 6ol. II, p. ;%*).

2hat the election for !enators, Me/bers of the 9ouse of Representatives and the local officials(under !ec. &, Art. >6III) 0ill have to be s nchroni ed 0ith the election for President and 6icePresident (under !ec. *, Art. >6III) is li e0ise evident fro/ the x x x records of the proceedin sin the Constitutional Co//ission. E/phasis supplied.J

Althou h called re ional elections, the ARMM elections should be included a/on the electionsto be s nchroni ed as it is a +local+ election based on the 0ordin and structure of theConstitution. 1avvphil

A basic rule in constitutional construction is that the 0ords used should be understood in thesense that the have in co//on use and iven their ordinar /eanin , except 0hen technicalter/s are e/plo ed, in 0hich case the si nificance thus attached to the/ prevails. '* As this Courtexplained in People v. erilo ,'; + aJs the Constitution is not pri/aril a la0 er4s docu/ent, itslan ua e should be understood in the sense that it /a have in co//on. Its 0ords should be

iven their ordinar /eanin except 0here technical ter/s are e/plo ed.+

Dnderstood in its ordinar sense, the 0ord +local+ refers to so/ethin that pri/aril serves theneeds of a particular li/ited district, often a co//unit or /inor political subdivision. '< Re ional elections in the ARMM for the positions of overnor, vice- overnor and re ional

asse/bl representatives obviousl fall 0ithin this classification, since the pertain to the electedofficials 0ho 0ill serve 0ithin the li/ited re ion of ARMM.

=ro/ the perspective of the Constitution, autono/ous re ions are considered one of the for/s oflocal overn/ents, as evident fro/ Article > of the Constitution entitled +1ocal 5overn/ent.+Autono/ous re ions are established and discussed under !ections '* to &' of this Article thearticle 0holl devoted to 1ocal 5overn/ent. 2hat an autono/ous re ion is considered a for/ oflocal overn/ent is also reflected in !ection ', Article > of the Constitution, 0hich provides@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt17


9/40

!ection '. 2he territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, /unicipalities, and baran a s. 2here shall be autono/ous re ions in Musli/Mindanao, and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

2hus, 0e find the contention that the s nchroni ation /andated b the Constitution does not

include the re ional elections of the ARMM un/eritorious. e shall refer to s nchroni ation inthe course of our discussions belo0, as this concept per/eates the consideration of the variousissues posed in this case and /ust be recalled ti/e and a ain for its co/plete resolution.

II. 2he President4s Certification on the Dr enc of RA No. '%'*$

2he petitioners in 5.R. No. '?


10/40

2he sufficienc of the factual basis of the suspension of the 0rit of habeas corpus or declarationof /artial la0 Art. 6II, !ection '3, or the existence of a national e/er enc ustif in thedele ation of extraordinar po0ers to the President under Art. 6I, !ection &$(&) is sub ect to

udicial revie0 because basic ri hts of individuals /a be of ha ard. But the factual basis of presidential certification of bills, 0hich involves doin a0a 0ith procedural re7uire/ents

desi ned to insure that bills are dul considered b /e/bers of Con ress, certainl should elicita different standard of revie0. E/phasis supplied.J

2he 9ouse of Representatives and the !enate in the exercise of their le islative discretion ave full reco nition to the President4s certification and pro/ptl enacted RA No. '%'*$. Dnder

the circu/stances, nothin short of rave abuse of discretion on the part of the t0o houses ofCon ress can ustif our intrusion under our po0er of udicial revie0. &'

2he petitioners, ho0ever, failed to provide us 0ith an cause or ustification for this course ofaction. 9ence, 0hile the udicial depart/ent and this Court are not bound b the acceptance ofthe PresidentKs certification b both the 9ouse of Representatives and the !enate, prudent

exercise of our po0ers and respect due our co-e7ual branches of overn/ent in /attersco//itted to the/ b the Constitution, caution a sta of the udicial hand .&&

In an case, despite the President4s certification, the t0o-fold purpose that underlies there7uire/ent for three readin s on separate da s of ever bill /ust al0a s be observed to enableour le islators and other parties interested in pendin bills to intelli entl respond to the/.!pecificall , the purpose 0ith respect to Me/bers of Con ress is@ (') to infor/ the le islators ofthe /atters the shall vote on and (&) to ive the/ notice that a /easure is in pro ress throu hthe enact/ent process. &$

e find, based on the records of the deliberations on the la0, that both advocates and the

opponents of the proposed /easure had sufficient opportunities to present their vie0s. In thisli ht, no reason exists to nullif RA No. '%'*$ on the cited round.

III. A. RA No. ?$$$ and RA No. '%'*$ are not a/end/ents to RA No. ?%*:

2he effectivit of RA No. ?$$$ and RA No. '%'*$ has also been challen ed because the did notco/pl 0ith !ections ' and $, Article >6II of RA No. ?%*: in a/endin this la0. 2hese

provisions re7uire@

!ection '. Consistent 0ith the provisions of the Constitution, this "r anic Act /a be rea/endedor revised b the Con ress of the Philippines upon a vote of t0o-thirds (&L$) of the Me/bers of

the 9ouse of Representatives and of the !enate votin separatel .!ection $. An a/end/ent to or revision of this "r anic Act shall beco/e effective onl 0henapproved b a /a orit of the vote cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose, 0hich shall be heldnot earlier than sixt (;%) da s or later than ninet (?%) da s after the approval of sucha/end/ent or revision.

e find no /erit in this contention.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt23


11/40

In the first place, neither RA No. ?$$$ nor RA No. '%'*$ a/ends RA No. ?%*:. As anexa/ination of these la0s 0ill sho0, RA No. ?%*: onl provides for the schedule of the firstARMM elections and does not fix the date of the re ular elections. A need therefore existed forthe Con ress to fix the date of the subse7uent ARMM re ular elections, 0hich it did b enactinRA No. ?$$$ and thereafter, RA No. '%'*$. "bviousl , these subse7uent la0s RA No. ?$$$

and RA No. '%'*$ cannot be considered a/end/ents to RA No. ?%*: as the did not chan eor revise an provision in the latter la08 the /erel filled in a ap in RA No. ?%*: orsupple/ented the la0 b providin the date of the subse7uent re ular elections.

2his vie0 that Con ress thou ht it best to leave the deter/ination of the date of succeedinARMM elections to le islative discretion finds support in ARMM4s recent histor .

2o recall, RA No. '%'*$ is not the first la0 passed that rescheduled the ARMM elections. 2he=irst "r anic Act RA No. ;


12/40

9ouse of Representatives or the !enate are present, these bodies have the 7uoru/ needed toconduct business and hold session. ithin a 7uoru/, a vote of /a orit is enerall sufficient toenact la0s or approve acts.

In contrast, !ection ', Article >6II of RA No. ?%*: re7uires a vote of no less than t0o-thirds

(&L$) of the Me/bers of the 9ouse of Representatives and of the !enate, votin separatel , inorder to effectivel a/end RA No. ?%*:. Clearl , this &L$ votin re7uire/ent is hi her than 0hatthe Constitution re7uires for the passa e of bills, and served to restrain the plenar po0ers ofCon ress to a/end, revise or repeal the la0s it had passed. 2he Court4s pronounce/ent in Citof avao v. 5!I! $$ on this sub ect best explains the basis and reason for the unconstitutionalit @

Moreover, it 0ould be noxious anathe/a to de/ocratic principles for a le islative bod to havethe abilit to bind the actions of future le islative bod , considerin that both asse/blies arere arded 0ith e7ual footin , exercisin as the do the sa/e plenar po0ers. Perpetualinfallibilit is not one of the attributes desired in a le islative bod , and a le islature 0hichatte/pts to forestall future a/end/ents or repeals of its enact/ents labors under delusions of

o/niscience.

xxx

A state le islature has a plenar la0-/a in po0er over all sub ects, 0hether pertainin to persons or thin s, 0ithin its territorial urisdiction, either to introduce ne0 la0s or repeal the old,unless prohibited expressl or b i/plication b the federal constitution or li/ited or restrained

b its o0n. It cannot bind itself or its successors b enactin irrepealable la0s except 0hen sorestrained. Ever le islative bod /a /odif or abolish the acts passed b itself or its

predecessors. 2his po0er of repeal /a be exercised at the sa/e session at 0hich the ori inal act0as passed8 and even 0hile a bill is in its pro ress and before it beco/es a la0. T%#& )e #&)(t re

c($$ot b#$+ ( t re )e #&)(t re to ( '(rt#c )(r 3o+e o re'e(). It c($$ot +ec)(re #$ (+ ($cet%e #$te$t o & b&e@ e$t )e #&)(t re& or t%e e ect o & b&e@ e$t )e #&)(t#o$ 'o$ e #&t#$&t(t te&.$: (E/phasis ours.)

2hus, 0hile a super/a orit is not a total ban a ainst a repeal, it is a li/itation in excess of 0hatthe Constitution re7uires on the passa e of bills and is constitutionall obnoxious because itsi nificantl constricts the future le islators4 roo/ for action and flexibilit .

III. C. !ection $, Article >6II of RA No. ?%*: excessivel enlar ed the plebiscite re7uire/entfound in !ection '3, Article > of the Constitution

2he re7uire/ents of RA No. ?%*: not onl re7uired an un0arranted super/a orit , but enlar edas 0ell the plebiscite re7uire/ent, as e/bodied in its !ection $, Article >6II of that Act. As 0edid on the super/a orit re7uire/ent, 0e find the enlar e/ent of the plebiscite re7uire/entre7uired under !ection '3, Article > of the Constitution to be excessive to point of absurdit and,hence, a violation of the Constitution.

!ection '3, Article > of the Constitution states that the plebiscite is re7uired onl for the creationof autono/ous re ions and for deter/inin 0hich provinces, cities and eo raphic areas 0ill be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt34


13/40

included in the autono/ous re ions. hile the settled rule is that a/end/ents to the "r anic Acthave to co/pl 0ith the plebiscite re7uire/ent in order to beco/e effective, $* 7uestions on theextent of the /atters re7uirin ratification /a unavoidabl arise because of the see/in l

eneral ter/s of the Constitution and the obvious absurdit that 0ould result if a plebiscite 0ereto be re7uired for ever statutor a/end/ent.

!ection '3, Article > of the Constitution plainl states that +2he creation of the autono/ousre ion shall be effective 0hen approved b the /a orit of the votes case b the constituent unitsin a plebiscite called for the purpose.+ ith these 0ordin s as standard, 0e interpret there7uire/ent to /ean that onl a/end/ents to, or revisions of, the "r anic Act constitutionall -essential to the creation of autono/ous re ions i.e., those aspects specificall /entioned in theConstitution 0hich Con ress /ust provide for in the "r anic Act re7uire ratification throu h a

plebiscite. 2hese a/end/ents to the "r anic Act are those that relate to@ (a) the basic structure of the re ional overn/ent8 (b) the re ion4s udicial s ste/, i.e., the special courts 0ith personal,fa/il , and propert la0 urisdiction8 and, (c) the rant and extent of the le islative po0ersconstitutionall conceded to the re ional overn/ent under !ection &%, Article > of the

Constitution.$;

2he date of the ARMM elections does not fall under an of the /atters that the Constitutionspecificall /andated Con ress to provide for in the "r anic Act. 2herefore, even assu/in thatthe super/a orit votes and the plebiscite re7uire/ents are valid, an chan e in the date ofelections cannot be construed as a substantial a/end/ent of the "r anic Act that 0ould re7uireco/pliance 0ith these re7uire/ents.

I6. 2he s nchroni ation issue

As 0e discussed above, s nchroni ation of national and local elections is a constitutional

/andate that Con ress /ust provide for and this s nchroni ation /ust include the ARMMelections. "n this point, an existin la0 in fact alread exists RA No.


14/40

elections assu/e office8 or ($) to authori e the President to appoint "ICs, pursuant to !ection $of RA No. '%'*$, also until those elected in the s nchroni ed elections assu/e office.

As 0ill be abundantl clear in the discussion belo0, Con ress, in choosin to rant the Presidentthe po0er to appoint "ICs, chose the correct option and passed RA No. '%'*$ as a co/pletel

valid la0.

6. 2he Constitutionalit of RA No. '%'*$

A. Basic Dnderl in Pre/ises

2o full appreciate the available options, certain underl in /aterial pre/ises /ust be fullunderstood. 2he first is the extent of the po0ers of Con ress to le islate8 the second is theconstitutional /andate for the s nchroni ation of elections8 and the third is on the concept ofautono/ as reco ni ed and established under the '?3< Constitution.

2he rant of le islative po0er to Con ress is broad, eneral and co/prehensive.$?

2he le islative bod possesses plenar po0er for all purposes of civil overn/ent. :% An po0er, dee/ed to bele islative b usa e and tradition, is necessaril possessed b Con ress, unless the Constitutionhas lod ed it else0here. :' Except as li/ited b the Constitution, either expressl or i/pliedl ,le islative po0er e/braces all sub ects and extends to all /atters of eneral concern or co//oninterest. :&

2he constitutional li/itations on le islative po0er are either express or i/plied. 2he expressli/itations are enerall provided in so/e provisions of the eclaration of Principles and !tatePolicies (Article &) and in the provisions Bill of Ri hts (Article $). "ther constitutional

provisions (such as the initiative and referendu/ clause of Article ;, !ections ' and $&, and the

autono/ provisions of Article >) provide their o0n express li/itations. 2he i/plied li/itationsare found +in the evident purpose 0hich 0as in vie0 and the circu/stances and historical events0hich led to the enact/ent of the particular provision as a part of or anic la0.+ :$

2he constitutional provisions on autono/ specificall , !ections '* to &' of Article > of theConstitution constitute express li/itations on le islative po0er as the define autono/ , itsre7uire/ents and its para/eters, thus li/itin 0hat is other0ise the unli/ited po0er of Con ressto le islate on the overnance of the autono/ous re ion.

"f particular relevance to the issues of the present case are the li/itations posed b the prescribed basic structure of overn/ent i.e., that the overn/ent /ust have an executive

depart/ent and a le islative asse/bl , both of 0hich /ust be elective and representative of theconstituent political units8 national overn/ent, too, /ust not encroach on the le islative po0ersranted under !ection &%, Article >. Conversel and as expressl reflected in !ection ', +all po0ers and functions not ranted b this Constitution or b la0 to the autono/ousre ions shall be vested in the National 5overn/ent.+

2he totalit of !ections '* to &' of Article > should li e0ise serve as a standard that Con ress/ust observe in dealin 0ith le islation touchin on the affairs of the autono/ous re ions. 2he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt43


15/40

ter/s of these sections leave no doubt on 0hat the Constitution intends the idea of self-rule orself- overn/ent, in particular, the po0er to le islate on a 0ide arra of social, econo/ic andad/inistrative /atters. But e7uall clear under these provisions are the per/eatin principles ofnational soverei nt and the territorial inte rit of the Republic, as expressed in the above-7uoted !ection '< and in !ection '*. :: In other 0ords, the Constitution and the supportin

urisprudence, as the no0 stand, re ect the notion of i/periu/ et i/perio:*

in the relationship bet0een the national and the re ional overn/ents.

In relation 0ith s nchroni ation, both autono/ and the s nchroni ation of national and localelections are reco ni ed and established constitutional /andates, 0ith one bein as co/pellinas the other. If their co/pellin force differs at all, the difference is in their covera e8s nchroni ation operates on and affects the 0hole countr , 0hile re ional autono/ as theter/ su ests directl carries a narro0er re ional effect althou h its national effect cannot bediscounted.

2hese underl in basic concepts characteri e the po0ers and li/itations of Con ress 0hen it

acted on RA No. '%'*$. 2o succinctl describe the le al situation that faced Con ress then, itsdecision to s nchroni e the re ional elections 0ith the national, con ressional and all other localelections (save for baran a and san unian abataan elections) left it 0ith the proble/ of ho0to provide the ARMM 0ith overnance in the intervenin period bet0een the expiration of theter/ of those elected in Au ust &%%3 and the assu/ption to office t0ent -one (&') /onthsa0a of those 0ho 0ill 0in in the s nchroni ed elections on Ma '$, &%'$.

2he proble/, in other 0ords, 0as for interi/ /easures for this period, consistent 0ith the ter/sof the Constitution and its established supportin urisprudence, and 0ith the respect due to theconcept of autono/ . Interi/ /easures, to be sure, is not a stran e pheno/enon in the Philippinele al landscape. 2he Constitution4s 2ransitor Provisions the/selves collectivel provide

/easures for transition fro/ the old constitution to the ne0:;

and for the introduction of ne0concepts. :< As previousl /entioned, the ad ust/ent of elective ter/s and of elections to0ardsthe oal of s nchroni ation first transpired under the 2ransitor Provisions. 2he ad ust/ents,ho0ever, failed to loo far enou h or deepl enou h, particularl into the proble/s thats nchroni in re ional autono/ous elections 0ould entail8 thus, the present proble/ is 0ith ustoda .

2he creation of local overn/ent units also represents instances 0hen interi/ /easures arere7uired. In the creation of ue on del !ur :3 and ina at Islands, :? the creatin statutesauthori ed the President to appoint an interi/ overnor, vice- overnor and /e/bers of thesan unian panlala0i an althou h these positions are essentiall elective in character8 theappointive officials 0ere to serve until a ne0 set of provincial officials shall have been electedand 7ualified. *% A si/ilar authorit to appoint is provided in the transition of a local overn/entfro/ a sub-province to a province. *'

In all these, the need for interi/ /easures is dictated b necessit 8 out-of-the-0a arran e/entsand approaches 0ere adopted or used in order to ad ust to the oal or ob ective in si ht in a/anner that does not do violence to the Constitution and to reasonabl accepted nor/s. Dnder
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt51


16/40

these li/itations, the choice of /easures 0as a 7uestion of 0isdo/ left to con ressionaldiscretion.

2o return to the underl in basic concepts, these concepts shall serve as the uideposts and/ar ers in our discussion of the options available to Con ress to address the proble/s brou ht

about b the s nchroni ation of the ARMM elections, properl understood as interi/ /easuresthat Con ress had to provide. 2he proper understandin of the options as interi/ /easuresassu/e pri/e /aterialit as it is under these ter/s that the passa e of RA No. '%'*$ should be/easured, i.e., iven the constitutional ob ective of s nchroni ation that cannot le all befaulted, did Con ress ravel abuse its discretion or violate the Constitution 0hen it addressedthrou h RA No. '%'*$ the conco/itant proble/s that the ad ust/ent of elections necessaril

brou ht 0ith itF

B. 9oldover "ption is Dnconstitutional

e rule out the first option holdover for those 0ho 0ere elected in executive and le islative

positions in the ARMM durin the &%%3-&%'' ter/ as an option that Con ress could havechosen because a holdover violates !ection 3, Article > of the Constitution. 2his provisionstates@

!ection 3. 2he ter/ of office of elective local officials, except baran a officials, 0hich shall bedeter/ined b la0, shall be three ears and no such official shall serve for /ore than threeconsecutive ter/s. e/phases oursJ

!ince elective ARMM officials are local officials, the are covered and bound b the three- earter/ li/it prescribed b the Constitution8 the cannot extend their ter/ throu h a holdover. Asthis Court put in "s/eGa v. C"ME1EC@ *&

It is not co/petent for the le islature to extend the ter/ of officers b providin that the shallhold over until their successors are elected and 7ualified 0here the constitution has in effect or

b clear i/plication prescribed the ter/ and 0hen the Constitution fixes the da on 0hich theofficial ter/ shall be in, there is no le islative authorit to continue the office be ond that

period, even thou h the successors fail to 7ualif 0ithin the ti/e.

In A/erican #urisprudence it has been stated as follo0s@

+It has been broadl stated that the le islature cannot, b an act postponin the election to fill anoffice the ter/ of 0hich is li/ited b the Constitution, extend the ter/ of the incu/bent be ond

the period as li/ited b the Constitution.+ E/phasis ours.JIndependentl of the "s/eGa rulin , the pri/ac of the Constitution as the supre/e la0 of theland dictates that 0here the Constitution has itself /ade a deter/ination or iven its /andate,then the /atters so deter/ined or /andated should be respected until the Constitution itself ischan ed b a/end/ent or repeal throu h the applicable constitutional process. A necessarcorollar is that none of the three branches of overn/ent can deviate fro/ the constitutional/andate except onl as the Constitution itself /a allo0. *$ If at all, Con ress /a onl pass
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_196271_2011.html#fnt53


17/40

le islation filin in details to full operationali e the constitutional co//and or to i/ple/ent it b le islation if it is non-self-executin 8 this Court, on the other hand, /a onl interpret the/andate if an interpretation is appropriate and called for. *:

In the case of the ter/s of local officials, their ter/ has been fixed clearl and une7uivocall ,

allo0in no roo/ for an i/ple/entin le islation 0ith respect to the fixed ter/ itself and nova ueness that 0ould allo0 an interpretation fro/ this Court. 2hus, the ter/ of three ears forlocal officials should sta at three ($) ears as fixed b the Constitution and cannot be extended

b holdover b Con ress.

If it 0ill be clai/ed that the holdover period is effectivel another ter/ /andated b Con ress,the net result is for Con ress to create a ne0 ter/ and to appoint the occupant for the ne0 ter/.2his vie0 li e the extension of the elective ter/ is constitutionall infir/ because Con resscannot do indirectl 0hat it cannot do directl , i.e., to act in a 0a that 0ould effectivel extendthe ter/ of the incu/bents. Indeed, if acts that cannot be le all done directl can be doneindirectl , then all la0s 0ould be illusor . ** Con ress cannot also create a ne0 ter/ and

effectivel appoint the occupant of the position for the ne0 ter/. 2his is effectivel an act ofappoint/ent b Con ress and an unconstitutional intrusion into the constitutional appoint/ent po0er of the President. *; 9ence, holdover 0hichever 0a it is vie0ed is a constitutionallinfir/ option that Con ress could not have underta en.

#urisprudence, of course, is not 0ithout exa/ples of cases 0here the 7uestion of holdover 0as brou ht before, and iven the i/pri/atur of approval b , this Court. 2he present case thou hdiffers si nificantl fro/ past cases 0ith contrar rulin s, particularl fro/ !a/barani v.C"ME1EC, *< Adap v. Co/elec, *3 and Montesclaros v. Co/elec, *? 0here the Court ruled that theelective officials could hold on to their positions in a hold over capacit .

All these past cases refer to elective baran a or san unian abataan officials 0hose ter/s ofoffice are not explicitl provided for in the Constitution8 the present case, on the other hand,refers to local elective officials the ARMM 5overnor, the ARMM 6ice-5overnor, and the/e/bers of the Re ional 1e islative Asse/bl 0hose ter/s fall 0ithin the three- ear ter/li/it set b !ection 3, Article > of the Constitution. Because of their constitutionall li/itedter/, Con ress cannot le islate an extension be ond the ter/ for 0hich the 0ere ori inallelected.

Even assu/in that holdover is constitutionall per/issible, and there had been statutor basisfor it (na/el !ection


18/40

C. 2he C"ME1EC has no authorit to order special elections

Another option proposed b the petitioner in 5.R. No. '?


19/40

on ver narro0 round and is /erel to annul a contravenin act of Con ress8 it is not tosupplant the decision of Con ress nor to /andate 0hat Con ress itself should have done in theexercise of its le islative po0ers. 2hus, contrar to 0hat the petition in 5.R. No. '?


20/40

!i/ilarl , !ection ; of BP 33' applies onl to those situations 0here elections have alread beenscheduled but do not ta e place because of (a) orce 3( e re , (b) #o)e$ce , (c) terror#&3 , (d)

r( + , or (e) ot%er ($()o o & c( &e& t%e e)ect#o$ #$ ($* 'o))#$ ')(ce %(& $ot bee$ %e)+ o$t%e +(te # e+, or %(+ bee$ & &'e$+e+ before the hour fixed b la0 for the closin of thevotin , or after the votin and durin the preparation and the trans/ission of the election returns

or in the custod or canvass thereof, & c% e)ect#o$ re& )t& #$ ( (#) re to e)ect. As in !ection *of BP 33', !ection ; addresses instances 0here the elections do not occur or had to be suspended because of $e 'ecte+ and $ ore&ee$ circu/stances.

In the present case, the postpone/ent of the ARMM elections is b la0 i.e., b con ressional polic and is pursuant to the constitutional /andate of s nchroni ation of national and localelections. B no stretch of the i/a ination can these reasons be iven the sa/e character as thecircu/stances conte/plated b !ection * or !ection ; of BP 33', 0hich all pertain to extrale alcauses that obstruct the holdin of elections. Courts, to be sure, cannot enlar e the scope of astatute under the uise of interpretation, nor include situations not provided nor intended b thela0/a ers. ;; Clearl , neither !ection * nor !ection ; of BP 33' can appl to the present case and

this Court has absolutel no le al basis to co/pel the C"ME1EC to hold special elections.

. 2he Court has no po0er to shorten the ter/s of elective officials

Even assu/in that it is le all per/issible for the Court to co/pel the C"ME1EC to holdspecial elections, no le al basis li e0ise exists to rule that the ne0l elected ARMM officialsshall hold office onl until the ARMM officials elected in the s nchroni ed elections shall haveassu/ed office.

In the first place, the Court is not e/po0ered to ad ust the ter/s of elective officials. Based onthe Constitution, the po0er to fix the ter/ of office of elective officials, 0hich can be exercised

onl in the case of baran a officials,;

Documents

11 Kida v. Senate (Term of Office Instructive)