Statutory Construction Full Text Cases (Phil Guardian Brotherhood, Navarro, Trade Investment)

8/10/2019 Statutory Construction Full Text Cases (Phil Guardian Brotherhood, Navarro, Trade Investment)

1/25

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 190529 March 22, 2011

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., rere!e"#e$ %& '#!Secre#ar&(Ge"era) GEORGE *+GB+ GEORGE* DULDULAO,Petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,Respondent.

R E S O L ! " O N

BRION, J.:

#e resolve in this Resolution all the pendin$ incidents in this case, specificall%&

'a( the conte)pt char$e*a$ainst the respondent Co))ission on Elections'Co)elec( for its alle$ed disobedience to this Court+s Status uo

Order-dated ebruar% -, -/*/0 and

'b( the issue of 1hether the petitioner, Philippine 2uardians Brotherhood,

"nc. 'P2B"(, should be declared to have participated in the part%3list

elections of Ma% */, -/*/, in li$ht of the Co)elec+s failure to obe% our

Status uo Order and our subse4uent Resolution5$rantin$ P2B"+s petition

to annul its delistin$ fro) the roster of accredited part%3list $roups or

or$ani6ations.7

AC!AL AN!ECE8EN!S

!hese incidents arose fro) our Status uo Order directin$ the Co)elec to restore

and )aintain the P2B" to its situation prior to the issuance of Co)elec Resolution

No. 9:;anuar% 5/, -/*/ at 5&// o+cloc? 'sic( in the afternoon, pursuant to Co)elec

Minute Resolution No. */3//7- dated >anuar% *


2/25

correspondin$ assi$n)ents to the correct districts, provinces,

)unicipalitiescities, and clustered precincts. Since the ballots are

precinct3specific to ensure the securit% of the votin$ and countin$,

this )eans verification of sevent% si thousand three hundred fort%

';:,57/( variations of the one thousand si hundred sevent%3four

'*,:;7( ballot te)plates0 and

f. Placin$ several securit% )ar?in$s in the ballots.

=( "n fact, the installation of the Election Mana$e)ent S%ste), 1hich is

used to $enerate the PCOS )achines confi$uration and ballot te)plates

production have alread% been in place as of >anuar% -=, -/*/.

:( !o co)pl% 1ith the status 4uo order 1ill not onl% affect the printin$ of

the ballots but also have serious i)plications on other activities of the

Co))ission, such as&

a. !he settin$ of confi$uration of the PCOS and CCS )achines0

b. !estin$ of PCOS )achines in their actual confi$uration 1ith theballots0

c. 8eplo%)ent of PCOS and CCS )achines and trans)ission

e4uip)ents0

d. Chec?in$testin$, de)os, and sealin$ of the PCOS and CCS

)achines0 and

e. Ship)ent of the ballots to all parts of the countr%.

;( 8ue to several re3schedulin$ of the ti)elines of the Co))ission,

S)art)atic3!"M cautioned that it is etre)el% ris?% to chan$e the database

containin$ the candidates+ infor)ation at this point in ti)e. An% chan$e in

the database and other preparator% activities 1ould )ean&

a. !1elve thousand '*-,///( PCOS )i$ht not be confi$ured and

dispatched to the field on ti)e0 and

b. our )illion ei$ht hundred thousand '7,9//,///( ballots )i$ht

not be printed before the deadline and shipped out on ti)e.

Even if the Co))ission 1ill resort to contin$enc% )easures to confi$ure

and ship out the t1elve thousand '*-,///( PCOS )achines on ti)e, theprintin$ of the ballots cannot be co)pleted before Ma% */, -/*/. !his

)eans that four )illion ei$ht hundred thousand '7,9//,///( voters )i$ht

not be able to vote due to lac? of ballots, thus disenfranchisin$ the).

*/( Fence, the Co))ission ferventl% re4uests the understandin$ and

forbearance of the Fonorable Court 1hich is the bastion of our Gustice

s%ste), protector of the de)ocratic processes and our last resort in ensurin$

a clean, peaceful, orderl% and credible Ma% */, -/*/ elections, to ta?e asecond loo? on the status 4uo order issued on ebruar% -, -/*/.9

"n its Co))ent to Co)elec+s Motion for Reconsideration 1ith Manifestation,


3/25

receipt of the Resolution, 1h% it should not be held in CON!EMP! of COR! for

its alle$ed defiance of our Status uo Order.*=

"n its Co)pliance*:to the Sho1 Cause Order 'sub)itted on Ma% -*, -/*/(, the

Co)elec reiterated the ar$u)ents it raised in its Etre)e r$ent Motion for

Reconsideration and !o Lift Status uo Order. Specificall%, it reiterated that there

1ere @insur)ountable and tre)endous operational constraints and cost i)plications

in co)pl%in$ 1ith the status 4uo order,@ 1hich order 'referrin$ to the Status uo

Order( is tanta)ount to technical, le$al, and ph%sical i)possibilit% for respondents toco)pl%.*;!he Co)elec as?ed the Court to note the eplanation and accept it as

sufficient co)pliance 1ith the Sho1 Cause Order.

Re4uired to co))ent on the Co)elec+s Co)pliance, P2B" filed a Manifestation

Cu) Co))ent,*9assertin$ that a careful readin$ of the Co)pliance reveals that the

Co)elec si)pl% deftl% s?irted and, ulti)atel%, never obe%ed the Status uo Order,

and thus 1antonl% and contu)aciousl% disre$arded the sa)e. !he P2B" additionall%

)anifested that via a letter to the Co)elec on Ma% 7, -/*/, it raised the follo1in$

concerns&

!he precedin$ pronounce)ent referrin$ to the Court+s Resolution $rantin$ P2B"+s

petitionD )a% appear to be inconse4uential and a p%rrhic victor% in vie1 of the errorand o)ission to include the na)e of the petitioner in the ballots for the scheduled

elections. Fo1 this Fonorable Co))ission 1ill find the )eans andor alternative to

co)pl% 1ith andor i)ple)ent the directive in said decision is a )atter left to its

Gud$)ent and discretion.

Be that as it )a%, it is the petitioner+s considered vie1 that a definitive rulin$,

includin$ the $rant of its Motion for Reconsideration in SPP No. /


4/25


5/25

be3all of an electoral process. An e4uall% i)portant aspect of a de)ocratic electoral

eercise is the ri$ht of free choice of the electorates on 1ho shall $overn the)0 the

part%3list s%ste), in the 1ords ofAng Bagong Bayani$OFW Labor Party v.

Comelec,-7affords the) this choice, as it $ives the )ar$inali6ed and

underrepresented sectors the opportunit% to participate in $overnance. #ittin$l% or

un1ittin$l%, the Co)elec too? this freedo) of choice a1a% and effectivel%

disenfranchised the )e)bers of the sector that P2B" sou$ht to represent 1hen it did

not include P2B" in the list of 4ualified parties v%in$ for a seat under the part%3list

s%ste) of representation. !his is a consideration no less 1ei$ht% than the auto)ation

of the election and cannot be si)pl% disre$arded on )ere $enerali6ed alle$ations of

auto)ation difficulties.

The Aror'a#e Pe"a)#&

Section ;, Rule ;* of the Rules of Court provides the penalt% for indirect conte)pt.

Section ; of Rule ;* reads&

SEC. ;.Punis%ment &or indirect contempt. 3 "f the respondent is adGud$ed $uilt% of

indirect conte)pt co))itted a$ainst a Re$ional !rial Court or a court of e4uivalent

or hi$her ran?, he )a% be punished b% a fine not eceedin$ thirt% thousand pesos or

i)prison)ent not eceedin$ si ':( )onths, or both.

"n the past, 1e have found the Chair)an and )e)bers of the Co)elec $uilt% of

indirect conte)pt inAng Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.-="n that

case, 1e held that the Chair)an and )e)bers of the COMELEC $uilt% of conte)pt

and re4uired the) to pa% a fine in the a)ount of P-/, ///.// for @de$radin$ the

di$nit% of theD Court0-:for bra6en disobedience to its la1ful directives, in particular

its !e)porar% Restrainin$ Order dated Ma% ose A.R. Melo+sresi$nation effective >anuar% *=, -/**5*and Co))issioners Nicode)o !. errer and

2re$orio J. Larra6abal+s retire)ent on ebruar% -, -/**.5-#e hasten to clarif% that

their departure fro) $overn)ent service, ho1ever, do not render )oot and acade)ic

their liabilit% for indirect conte)pt, since @conte)pt of court applies to all persons,

1hether in or out of $overn)ent.@ !hus, in Curata v. Philippine Ports Authorit%,551e

held&

Conte)pt of court applies to all persons, 1hether in or out of $overn)ent. !hus, it

covers $overn)ent officials or e)plo%ees 1ho retired durin$ the pendenc% of the

petition for conte)pt. Other1ise, a civil servant )a% strate$i6e to avail hi)self of an

earl% retire)ent to escape the sanctions fro) a conte)pt citation, if he perceives that

he 1ould be )ade responsible for a contu)acious act. !he hi$her interest ofeffective and efficient ad)inistration of Gustice dictates that a petition for conte)pt

)ust proceed to its final conclusion despite the retire)ent of the $overn)ent official

or e)plo%ee, )ore so if it involves a for)er )e)ber of the bench.

P2B"+s Participation in the Ma% */, -/*/ Part%3List Elections

#e partl% a$ree 1ith the Co)elec that 1e cannot reco$ni6e P2B" to be a part%3list

or$ani6ation full% 4ualified to run under the part%3list s%ste) in the co)in$ -/*5

part%3list elections. !he 4uestion of full and total 4ualification is not ripe for Gudicial

deter)ination as this is not before us for resolution. Participation in a previous

election and the level of votes in favor of a participatin$ or$ani6ation are not the onl%

4ualification issues that can arise in a part%3list election, and 1e cannot assu)e that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_190529_2011.html#fnt33


6/25

P2B" shall )eet all other le$al s tandards to 4ualif% as a part%3list or$ani6ation in the

-/*5 elections.57

But separate fro) the 4uestion of P2B"+s overall 4ualification is the narro1er

4uestion of its participation in the Ma% */, -/*/ elections H an issue that is

subsu)ed b% the issues in the )ain certiorari case. As sho1n above, P2B" intended

to participate in the Ma% */, -/*/ elections but it 1as not able to do so because the

Co)elec did not H contrar% to our epress directive H include it in the list of part%3

list or$ani6ations to be voted upon in the Ma% */, -/*/ elections. As it 1as theCo)elec itself 1hich prevented P2B" fro) participatin$ in the Ma% */, -/*/ part%3

list elections 1hen it deleted P2B", 1ith $rave abuse of discretion, fro) the list of

accredited part%3list $roups or or$ani6ations and, thereafter, refused to return it to the

list despite our directive, P2B" should, at the ver% least, be dee)ed to have

participated in the Ma% */, -/*/ elections, and cannot be dis4ualified for non3

participation or for failure to $arner the votes re4uired under Section :'9( of R.A.

No. ;


7/25


SPREME COR!

Ba$uio Cit%

EN BANC

2.R. No. *9//=/ April *-, -/**

RO8OLO 2. NAARRO, "C!OR . BERNAL, and RENE O. ME8"NA,

Petitioners,

vs.

EKEC!"E SECRE!ARJ E8AR8O ERM"!A, representin$ the President of the

Philippines0 Senate of the Philippines, represented b% the SENA!E PRES"8EN!0

Fouse of Representatives, represented b% the FOSE SPEAER0 2OERNOR

ROBER! ACE S. BARBERS, representin$ the )other province of Suri$ao del

Norte0 2OERNOR 2ERAL8"NE ECLEO "LLAROMAN, representin$ the ne1

Province of 8ina$at "slands, Respondents,

CON2RESSMAN RANC"SCO !. MA!2AS, FON. SOL !. MA!2AS, FON.

AR!RO CARLOS A. E2AJ, >R., FON. S"MEON "CEN!E 2. CAS!RENCE,

FON. MAMER!O 8. 2ALAN"8A, FON. MAR2AR"!O M. LON2OS, and FON.

CESAR M. BA2N8OL, "ntervenors.

R E S O L ! " O N

NACFRA, >.&

or consideration of the Court is the r$ent Motion to Recall Entr% of >ud$)ent

dated October -/, -/*/ filed b% Movant3"ntervenors* dated and filed on October -ul% -/, -/*/ Resolution.

!o provide a clear perspective of the instant )otion, 1e present hereunder a brief

bac?$round of the relevant antecedentsI

On October -, -//:, the President of the Republic approved into la1 Republic Act

'R.A.( No. anuar% -:, -//;.

Later, durin$ the Ma% *7, -//; s%nchroni6ed elections, the 8ina$atnons elected their

ne1 set of provincial officials 1ho assu)ed office on >ul% *, -//;.=

On Nove)ber */, -//:, petitioners Rodolfo 2. Navarro, ictor . Bernal and Rene

O. Medina, for)er political leaders of Suri$ao del Norte, filed before this Court a

petition for certiorari and prohibition '2.R. No. *;=*=9( challen$in$ the

constitutionalit% of R.A. No.


8/25


9/25

Le$islative 8istrict of Suri$ao del Norte, 1ill not be able to vote for Me)bers,

San$$unian$ Panlala1i$an and Me)ber, Fouse of Representatives, 8ina$at "slands.

Also, the voters of the 1hole Province of Suri$ao del Norte, 1ill not be able to vote

for the 2overnor and ice 2overnor, 8ina$at "slands. 2iven this situation, the

Co))ission 1ill postpone the elections for 2overnor, ice 2overnor, Me)ber,

Fouse of Representatives, irst Le$islative 8istrict, Suri$ao del Norte, and

Me)bers, San$$unian$ Panlala1i$an, irst Le$islative 8istrict, Suri$ao del Norte,

because the election 1ill result in aD failure to elect, since, in actualit%, there are no

candidates for 2overnor, ice 2overnor, Me)bers, San$$unian$ Panlala1i$an, irst

Le$islative 8istrict, and Me)ber, Fouse of Representatives, irst Le$islative

8istrict '1ith 8ina$at "slands( of Suri$ao del Norte.

c. "f the 8ecision beco)es final and eecutor% after the election, the Province of

8ina$at "slands 1ill revert to its previous status as part of the irst Le$islative

8istrict of Suri$ao del Norte. !he result of the election 1ill have to be nullified for

the sa)e reasons $iven in "te) @b@ above. A special election for 2overnor, ice

2overnor, Me)ber, Fouse of Representatives, irst Le$islative 8istrict of Suri$ao

del Norte, and Me)bers, San$$unian$ Panlala1i$an, irst 8istrict, Suri$ao del

Norte '1ith 8ina$at "slands( 1ill have to be conducted.

SO OR8ERE8.

!he% further alle$ed that, because the% are the dul% elected officials of Suri$ao del

Norte 1hose positions 1ill be affected b% the nullification of the election results in

the event that the Ma% *-, -/*/ Resolution is not reversed, the% have a le$al interest

in the instant case and 1ould be directl% affected b% the declaration of nullit% of R.A.

No. ul% -/, -/*/,*: the Court denied the Motion for Leave to

"ntervene and to ile and to Ad)it "ntervenors+ Motion for Reconsideration of the

Resolution dated Ma% *-, -/*/ on the $round that the allo1ance or disallo1ance of

a )otion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and that the

appropriate ti)e to file the said )otion 1as before and not after the resolution of this

case.

On Septe)ber ;, -/*/, )ovants3intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration of

the >ul% -/, -/*/ Resolution, citin$ several rulin$s*; of the Court, allo1in$

intervention as an eception to Section -, Rule *< of the Rules of Court that it should

be filed at an% ti)e before the rendition of Gud$)ent. !he% alle$ed that, prior to the

Ma% */, -/*/ elections, their le$al interest in this case 1as not %et eistent. !he%

averred that prior to the Ma% */, -/*/ elections, the% 1ere una1are of the

proceedin$s in this case. Even for the sa?e of ar$u)ent that the% had notice of the

pendenc% of the case, the% pointed out that prior to the said elections, Sol !. Matu$as

1as a si)ple resident of Suri$ao del Norte, Arturo Carlos A. E$a%, >r. 1as a )e)ber

of the San$$unian$ Panlala1i$an of the Second 8istrict of Suri$ao del Norte, and

Ma)erto 8. 2alanida 1as the Municipal Ma%or of Socorro, Suri$ao del Norte, and

that, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9;ud$)ent, statin$ that the

decision in this case had beco)e final and eecutor% on Ma% *9, -/*/. Fence, the

above )otion.

At the outset, it )ust be clarified that this Resolution delves solel% on the instantr$ent Motion to Recall Entr% of >ud$)ent of )ovants3intervenors, not on the

second )otions for reconsideration of the ori$inal parties, and neither on 8ina$at+s

r$ent O)nibus Motion, 1hich our

estee)ed collea$ue, Mr. >ustice Arturo 8. Brion considers as 8ina$at+s third )otion

for reconsideration. "nas)uch as the )otions for leave to ad)it their respective

)otions for reconsideration of the Ma% *-, -/*/ Resolution and the aforesaid

)otions for reconsideration 1ere alread% noted 1ithout action b% the Court, there is

no reason to treat 8ina$at+s r$ent O)nibus Motion differentl%. "n relation to this,

the r$ent Motion to Recall Entr% of >ud$)ent of )ovants3intervenors could not be

considered as a second )otion for reconsideration to 1arrant the application of

Section 5, Rule *= of the "nternal Rules of the Supre)e Court.*9 "t should be noted


10/25

that this )otion pra%s for the recall of the entr% of Gud$)ent and for the resolution of

their )otion for reconsideration of the >ul% -/, -/*/ Resolution 1hich re)ained

unresolved. !he denial of their )otion for leave to intervene and to ad)it )otion for

reconsideration of the Ma% *-, -/*/ Resolution did not rule on the )erits of the

)otion for reconsideration of the Ma% *-, -/*/ Resolution, but onl% on the

ti)eliness of the intended intervention. !heir )otion for reconsideration of this

denial elaborated on )ovants3intervenors+ interest in this case 1hich eisted onl%

after Gud$)ent had been rendered. As such, their )otion for intervention and their

)otion for reconsideration of the Ma% *-, -/*/ Resolution )erel% stand as an initial

reconsideration of the said resolution.

#ith due deference to Mr. >ustice Brion, there appears nothin$ in the records to

support the clai) that this 1as a plo% of respondents+ le$al tactician to reopen the

case despite an entr% of Gud$)ent. !o be sure, it is actuall% COMELEC Resolution

No. 9;


11/25

re4uire)ents of the rules, is an essential part of our Gudicial s%ste), such that courts

should proceed 1ith caution not to deprive a part% of the ri$ht to 4uestion the

Gud$)ent and its effects, and ensure that ever% part%3liti$ant, includin$ those 1ho

1ould be directl% affected, 1ould have the a)plest opportunit% for the proper and

Gust disposition of their cause, freed fro) the constraints of technicalities.--

eril%, the Court had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall entries of Gud$)ent

in li$ht of attendant etraordinar% circu)stances.-5 !he po1er to suspend or even

disre$ard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and co)pellin$ as to alter even that

1hich this Court itself had alread% declared final.-7 "n this case, the co)pellin$

concern is not onl% to afford the )ovants3intervenors the ri$ht to be heard since the%

1ould be adversel% affected b% the Gud$)ent in this case despite not bein$ ori$inal

parties thereto, but also to arrive at the correct interpretation of the provisions of the

L2C 1ith respect to the creation of local $overn)ent units. "n this )anner, the thrust

of the Constitution 1ith respect to local autono)% and of the L2C 1ith respect to

decentrali6ation and the attain)ent of national $oals, as hereafter elucidated, 1ill

effectivel% be reali6ed.

On the )erits of the )otion for intervention, after ta?in$ a lon$ and intent loo?, the

Court finds that the first and second ar$u)ents raised b% )ovants3intervenors

deserve affir)ative consideration.

"t )ust be borne in )ind that the central polic% considerations in the creation of local

$overn)ent units are econo)ic viabilit%, efficient ad)inistration, and capabilit% to

deliver basic services to their constituents. !he criteria prescribed b% the L2C, i.e.,

inco)e, population and land area, are all desi$ned to acco)plish these results. "n this

li$ht, Con$ress, in its collective 1isdo), has debated on the relative 1ei$ht of each

of these three criteria, placin$ e)phasis on 1hich of the) should enGo% preferential

consideration.

#ithout doubt, the pri)ordial criterion in the creation of local $overn)ent units,

particularl% of a province, is econo)ic viabilit%. !his is the clear intent of the fra)ers

of the L2C. "n this connection, the follo1in$ ecerpts fro) con$ressional debates

are 4uoted hereunderI

FON. ALELOR. "nco)e is )andator%. #e can even have this doubled because 1e

thou$ht

CFA"RMAN CENCO. "n other 1ords, the pri)ordial consideration here is the

econo)ic viabilit% of the ne1 local $overn)ent unit, the ne1 province

FON. LA28A. !he reason 1h% 1e are 1illin$ to increase the inco)e, double than

the Fouse version, because 1e also believe that econo)ic viabilit% is reall% a

)ini)u). Land area and population are functions reall% of the viabilit% of the area,

because %ou have an inco)e level 1hich 1ould be the tri$$er point for econo)ic

develop)ent, population 1ill naturall% increase because there 1ill be an

i))i$ration. Fo1ever, if %ou disallo1 the particular area fro) bein$ converted into

a province because of the population proble)s in the be$innin$, it 1ill never be able

to reach the point 1here it could beco)e a province si)pl% because it 1ill never

have the econo)ic ta?e off for it to tri$$er off that econo)ic develop)ent.

No1, 1e+re sa%in$ that )a%be ourteen Million Pesos is a floor area 1here it could

pa% for overhead and provide a )ini)u) of basic services to the population. Over

and above that, the provincial officials should be able to tri$$er off econo)ic

develop)ent 1hich 1ill attract i))i$ration, 1hich 1ill attract ne1 invest)ents

fro) the private sector. !his is no1 the concern of the local officials. But if 1e are

$oin$ to tie the hands of the proponents, si)pl% b% tellin$ the), @Sorr%, %ou are no1

at *=/ thousand or -// thousand,@ %ou 1ill never be able to beco)e a province

because nobod% 1ants to $o to %our place. #h% Because %ou never have an% reason

for econo)ic viabilit%.

CFA"RMAN P"MEN!EL. O?a%, 1hat about land area

FON. LMA"2. *,=// s4uare ?ilo)eters

FON. AN2ARA. #alan$ proble)a %on, in fact that+s not ver% critical, %on$ land

area because

CFA"RMAN P"MEN!EL. O?a%, %a, our, the Senate version is 5.=, 5,=// s4uare

)eters, ah, s4uare ?ilo)eters.

FON. LA28A. Ne, Ne. A province is constituted for the purpose of ad)inistrative

efficienc% and deliver% of basic services.

CFA"RMAN P"MEN!EL. Ri$ht.

FON. LA28A. Actuall%, 1hen %ou co)e do1n to it, 1hen $overn)ent 1as

instituted, there is onl% one central $overn)ent and then ever%bod% falls under that.

But it 1as later on subdivided into provinces for purposes of ad)inistrative

efficienc%.

CFA"RMAN P"MEN!EL. O?a%.

FON. LA28A. No1, 1hat 1e+re seein$ no1 is that the ad)inistrative efficienc%

is no lon$er there precisel% because the land areas that 1e are $ivin$ to our

$overnors is so 1ide that no one )an can possibl% ad)inister all of the co)ple

)achineries that are needed.


12/25


13/25

'd( Municipalities eistin$ as of the date of effectivit% of this Code shall continue to

eist and operate as such. Eistin$ )unicipal districts or$ani6ed pursuant to

presidential issuances or eecutive orders and 1hich have their respective set of

elective )unicipal officials holdin$ office at the ti)e of the effectivit% of this Code

shall henceforth be considered re$ular )unicipalities.

L2C3"RR& AR!"CLE *5. Municipalities. H 'a( Re4uisites for Creation H A

)unicipalit% shall not be created unless the follo1in$ re4uisites are present&

'i( "nco)e H An avera$e annual inco)e of not less than !1o Million ive Fundred

!housand Pesos 'P-,=//,///.//(, for the i))ediatel% precedin$ t1o '-( consecutive

%ears based on *


14/25

Provided, !hat the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and

inco)e of the ori$inal unit or units at the ti)e of said creation to less than the

)ini)u) re4uire)ents prescribed herein.

'b( !he territor% need not be conti$uous if it co)prises t1o '-( or )ore islands or is

separated b% a chartered cit% or cities 1hich do not contribute to the inco)e of the

province.

'c( !he avera$e annual inco)e shall include the inco)e accruin$ to the $eneral fund,

eclusive of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non3recurrin$ inco)e.

L2C3"RR& AR!"CLE


15/25

issuin$ the appropriate rules and re$ulations necessar% for the efficient and effective

i)ple)entation of all the provisions of the said Code0 and

#FEREAS, the Oversi$ht Co))ittee, after due deliberations and consultations 1ith

all the concerned sectors of societ% and consideration of the operative principles of

local autono)% as provided in the Local 2overn)ent Code of *


16/25

Conference Co))ittee Report. And " Gust 1ant to )anifest that insofar as the

creation of the province, not onl% in )% province, but the other provinces. !hat the

)other province 1ill participate in the plebiscite, the% can defeat the province, let+s

sa%, on the basis of the result, the province cannot be created if the% lose in the

plebiscite, and " don+t see 1h%, 1e should put this strin$ent conditions to the private

people of the devolution that the% are see?in$.

So, Mr. Senator, " thin? 1e should consider the situation seriousl%, because, this is an

approved version of the Fouse, and " 1ill not be the one to raise up and 4uestion the

Conference Co))ittee Report, but the rest of the Fouse that are interested in this

bill. And the% have been approachin$ the Spea?er about this. So, the Spea?er

re)inded )e to )a?e sure that it ta?es the cud$el of the Fouse approved version.

So, that+s all 1hat " can sa%, Mr. Senator, and " don+t believe that it is not, because

it+s the 1ish of the Fouse, but because the )other province 1ill participate an%ho1,

%ou vote the) do1n0 and that is provided for in the Constitution. As a )atter of fact,

" have seen the a)end)ent 1ith re$ards to the creation of the cit% to be urbani6ed,

subGect to the plebiscite. And 1h% should 1e not allo1 that to happen in the

provinces "n other 1ords, 1e don+t 1ant the people 1ho 1ants to create a ne1

province, as if the% are left in the devolution of po1ers, 1hen the% feel that the% are

far a1a% fro) civili6ation.

No1, " a) not tal?in$ about other provinces, because " a) una1are, not a1are of

their situation. But the province of South Cotabato has a ver% uni4ue $eo$raphical

territorial con$lo)erations. One side is in the other side of the Ba%, of Saran$ani

Ba%. !he capital to1n is in the North0 1hile these other )unicipalities are in the East

and in the #est. And if the% have to travel fro) the last to1n in the eastern part of

the province, it is about one hundred fort% ?ilo)eters to the capital to1n. And fro)

the #est side, it is the sa)e distance. And fro) the North side, it is about one

hundred ?ilo)eters. So that is the proble) there. And besides, the% have enou$h

resources and " feel that, not because " a) interested in the province, " a) after their

1elfare in the future. #ho a) " to dictate on those people " have no interest but then

" a) loo?in$ at the future develop)ent of these areas.

As a )atter of fact, if " a) in politics, it+s incidental0 " do not need to be there, but "

can foresee 1hat the creation of a ne1 province 1ill brin$ to these people. "t 1ill

brin$ the) prosperit%0 it 1ill brin$ the) )ore inco)e, and it 1ill encoura$e even

forei$n investors. Li?e the PAP no1, the% are concentratin$ in South Cotabato,

especiall% in the Cit% of

2eneral Santos and the nei$hborin$ )unicipalities, and the% are 4uite interested and

even the A"8 people are as?in$ )e, @#hat is holdin$ the creation of a ne1 province

1hen practicall% %ou need it@ "t+s not -/ or 5/ ?ilo)eters fro) the capital to1n0 it+s

about *7/ ?ilo)eters. And i)a$ine those people have to travel that far and our road

is not li?e Metropolitan Manila. !hat is as far as fro) here to !arlac. And there are

)unicipalities there that are Gust one )unicipalit% is bi$$er than the province of La

nion. !he% have the inco)e. Of course, the% don+t have the population because

that+s a part of the land of pro)ise and people fro) Lu6on are )i$ratin$ ever%da%

because the% feel that there are )ore opportunities here.

So, b% creatin$ the ne1 provinces, not onl% in )% case, in the other cases, it 1ill

enhance the develop)ent of the Philippines, not because " a) interested in )%

province. #ell, as far as " a) concerned, %ou ?no1, " a) in the t1ili$ht %ears of )%

life to serve and " 1ould li?e to serve )% people 1ell. No personal or political

interest here. " hope the distin$uished Chair)an of the Co))ittee 1ill appreciate the

Fouse Bill ;*::, 1hich the Fouse has alread% approved because 1e don+t 1ant the)

to thro1 the Conference Co))ittee Report after 1e have 1or?ed that the house Bill

has been, %ou ?no1, dra1n over board and not even considered b% the Senate. And

on top of that, 1e are considerin$ a bill that has not %et been passed. So " hope the

Senator 1ill ta?e that into account.

!han? %ou for $ivin$ )e this ti)e to eplain.

CFA"RMAN L"NA. !han? %ou ver% )uch, Con$ress)an >a)es. #e 1ill loo? into

the le$islative histor% of the Senate version on this )atter of creation of provinces. "

a) sure there 1as an a)end)ent. As " said, "+ll loo? into it. Ma%be the Fouse

version 1as incorporated in toto, but )a%be durin$ the discussion, their a)end)ents

1ere introduced and, therefore, Senator Pi)entel could not hold on to the ori$inalversion and as a result ne1 criteria 1ere introduced.

But because of the )anifestation that %ou Gust )ade, 1e 1ill definitel%, 1hen 1e

reach a boo?, !itle ", on the )atter of provinces, 1e 1ill loo? at it s%)patheticall%

fro) %our end so that the obGective that %ou 1ant toD achieve can be reali6ed. So 1e

1ill loo? at it 1ith s%)path%. #e 1ill revie1 our position on the )atter, ho1 1e

arrived at the Senate version and 1e 1ill adopt an open )ind definitel% 1hen 1e

co)e into it.

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. anino %an

CFA"RMAN L"NA. Boo? """.

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. !itle

CFA"RMAN L"NA. !itle ".

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. " have been ponderin$ on the case of >a)es, especiall% on

econo)ic sti)ulation of a certain area. Li?e our case, because " put )%self on our

province, our province is 4uite ver% bi$. "t+s co)posed of four '7( con$ressional

districts and " feel it should be five no1. But durin$ the Batasan ti)e, four of us

tal?ed and conversed proposin$ to divide the province into t1o.


17/25

!here are areas then, 1hen since ti)e i))e)orial, ver% fe1 $overnors ever tread on

those areas. !hat is, )a%be %ou+re ac4uainted 1ith the Bondoc Peninsula of ue6on,

frontin$ that is Ra$a% 2ulf. ro) Ra$a% there is a lon$ stretch of coastal area. ro)

Alba% $oin$ to Ra$a%, ver% fe1 $overnors ever tread thereD before, even toda%. !hat

area no1 is infested 1ith NPA. !hat is the area of Con$ress)an Anda%a.

No1, 1e thou$ht that in order to sti)ulate $ro1th, )a%be provincial aid can be

etended to these areas. #ith a bi$ or a lar$e area of a province, a certain

ad)inistrator or provincial $overnor definitel% 1ill have no sufficient ti)e. or )e,

if 1e reall% 1ould li?e to sti)ulate $ro1th, " believe that an area 1here there is

ph%sical or $eo$raphical i)possibilities, 1here ad)inistrators can penetrate, " thin?

1e have to create certain provisions in the la1 1here )a%be 1e can treat it 1ith

special considerations.

No1, 1e 1ent over the $raduate scale of the Philipppine Local 2overn)ent 8ata as

far as provinces are concerned. "t is ver% surprisin$ that there are provinces here

1hich onl% co)posed of si )unicipalities, ei$ht )unicipalities, seven

)unicipalities. Li?e in Ca$a%an, !u$ue$arao, there are si )unicipalities. Ah, ecuse

)e, Batanes.

CFA"RMAN L"NA. #ill %ou loo? at the case of 333 ho1 )an% )unicipalities are

there in Batanes province

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. Batanes is onl% si.

CFA"RMAN L"NA. Si to1n. Si4uiGor

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. Si4uiGor. "t is re$ion

CFA"RMAN L"NA. Seven.

CFA"RMAN ALELOR.L Seven. Ani).

CFA"RMAN L"NA. Si also.

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. Si also.

CFA"RMAN L"NA. "t see)s 1ith a )ini)u) nu)ber of to1ns

CFA"RMAN ALELOR. !he population of Si4uiGor is onl% ;/ thousand, not even

one con$ressional district. But tu)aas in *


18/25

the i)ple)entin$ rules and re$ulations and pertinent eecutive issuances in the

nature of eecutive andor le$islative construction. Pursuant to this principle, Article


19/25


20/25


SPREME COR!

Manila

EN BANC

2.R. No. *9--7< March =, -/*5

!RA8E AN8 "NES!MEN! 8EELOPMEN! CORPORA!"ON O !FE

PF"L"PP"NES, Petitioner,vs.

C""L SER"CE COMM"SS"ON, Respondent.

8 E C " S " O N

BR"ON, >.&

#e resolve the petition for revie1 on certiorari* of !rade and "nvest)ent

8evelop)ent Corporation of the Philippines '!>8CORP( see?in$ the reversal of the

decision- dated Septe)ber -9, -//; and the resolution5 dated March *;, -//9 of the

Court of Appeals 'CA( in CA32.R. SP. No. 9*/=9. !he assailed CA rulin$s affir)ed

the resolutions,7 dated >anuar% 5*, -//5 and October ;, -//5, of the Civil ServiceCo))ission 'CSC(, invalidatin$ Arsenio de 2u6)an+s appoint)ent as inancial

Mana$e)ent Specialist " in !"8CORP. !he CA subse4uentl% denied the )otion for

reconsideration that follo1ed.

actual Antecedents

On Au$ust 5/, -//*, 8e 2u6)an 1as appointed on a per)anent

status as inancial Mana$e)ent Specialist " of !"8CORP, a $overn)ent3o1ned

and controlled corporation '2OCC( created pursuant to Presidential

8ecree No. */9/. Fis appoint)ent 1as included in !"8CORP+s Report on

Personnel Actions 'ROPA( for Au$ust -//*, 1hich 1as sub)itted to the

CSC H 8epart)ent of Bud$et and Mana$e)ent '8BM( ield Office.=

"n a letter: dated Septe)ber -9, -//*, 8irector Leticia M. Bu$ton$ disallo1ed 8e

2u6)an+s appoint)ent because the position of inancial Mana$e)ent Specialist "

1as not included in the 8BM+s "nde of Occupational Service.

!"8CORP+s Eecutive ice President >ane . !a)banillo appealed; the invalidation

of 8e 2u6)an+s appoint)ent to 8irector " A$nes Padilla of the CSC3National

Capital Re$ion 'NCR(. Accordin$ to !a)banillo, Republic Act No. 'RA( 97


21/25

)ust confor) 1ith the approved Position Allocation List and )ust be found in the

"nde of Occupational Service. Since the position of inancial Mana$e)ent

Specialist " is not included in the "nde of Occupational Service, then 8e 2u6)an+s

appoint)ent to this position )ust be invalid.9 8irector Padilla pointed out that the

CSC had alread% decided upon an issue si)ilar to 8e 2u6)an+s case in CSC

Resolution No. /**7oel C. aldes

sent CSC Chairperson arina Constantino38avid a Letter** appealin$ 8irector

Padilla+s decision to the CSC3Central Office 'CO(. aldes reiterated !"8CORP+s

ar$u)ent that RA 97ul% *, *


22/25

urther, the CA cited the CSC+s )andate under the *


23/25

re4uire)ent. !he CSC, on the other hand, )aintains its stance that appoint)ents in a

2OCC should follo1 the civil service la1s on appoint)ents, re$ardless of its

ee)ption fro) the civil service rules on co)pensation, position classification and

4ualification standards.

#hile the CSC has authorit% over personnel actions in 2OCCs, the rules it

for)ulates pursuant to this )andate should not contradict or a)end the civil service

la1s it i)ple)ents.

At the outset, 1e clarif% that the CSC+s authorit% over personnel actions in!"8CORP is uncontested. Both parties ac?no1led$e this relationship in the

pleadin$s the% filed before the Supre)e Court.-= But 1hile !"8CORP asserts that

its charter ee)pts it fro) rules on co)pensation, position classification and

4ualification standards, the CSC ar$ues that this ee)ption is irrelevant to the denial

of 8e 2u6)an+s appoint)ent because the CSC+s authorit% over !"8CORP+s

personnel actions re4uires it to co)pl% 1ith the CSC+s rules on appoint)ents.

!he parties+ ar$u)ents reveal an apparent clash bet1een !"8CORP+s charter,

enacted b% Con$ress, and the CSC rules, issued pursuant to the CSC+s rule3)a?in$

po1er. 8oes the CSC+s constitutional authorit% over the civil service divest the

Le$islature of the po1er to enact la1s providin$ ee)ptions to civil service rules

#e ans1er in the ne$ative. !he CSC+s rule3)a?in$ po1er, albeit constitutionall%

$ranted, is still li)ited to the i)ple)entation and interpretation of the la1s it is

tas?ed to enforce.

!he *r.,5/ a case 1hich upheld the validit% of a resolution

issued b% the Co))ission on Elections 'COMELEC(, another constitutional

co))ission&

Fence, the present Constitution up$raded to a constitutional status the aforesaid

statutor% authorit% to $rant the Co))ission broader and )ore fleible po1ers to

effectivel% perfor) its duties and to insulate it further fro) le$islative intrusions.8oubtless, if its rule3)a?in$ po1er is )ade to depend on statutes, Con$ress )a%

1ithdra1 the sa)e at an% ti)e. "ndeed, the present Constitution envisions a trul%

independent Co))ission on Elections co))itted to ensure free, orderl%, honest,

peaceful and credible elections, and to serve as the $uardian of the peoples sacred

ri$ht of suffra$e I the citi6enr%s vital 1eapon in effectin$ a peaceful chan$e of

$overn)ent and in achievin$ and pro)otin$ political stabilit%. citation o)ittedD

But 1hile the $rant of the CSC+s rule3)a?in$ po1er is untouchable b% Con$ress, the

la1s that the CSC interprets and enforces fall 1ithin the prero$ative of Con$ress. As

an ad)inistrative a$enc%, the CSC+s 4uasi3le$islative po1er is subGect to the sa)e

li)itations applicable to other ad)inistrative bodies. !he rules that the CSC


24/25

for)ulates )ust not override, but )ust be in har)on% 1ith, the la1 it see?s to appl%

and i)ple)ent.5*

or ea)ple, in 2re$o v. Co))ission on Elections,5- 1e held that it 1as i)proper

for the COMELEC, a constitutional bod% besto1ed 1ith rule3)a?in$ po1er b% the

Constitution, to use the 1ord @shall@ in the rules it for)ulated, 1hen the la1 it

sou$ht to i)ple)ent uses the 1ord @)a%.@ #hile rules issued b% ad)inistrative

bodies are entitled to $reat respect, @the conclusive effect of ad)inistrative

construction is not absolute. !he function of pro)ul$atin$ rules and re$ulations )a%

be le$iti)atel% eercised onl% for the purpose of carr%in$ the provisions of the la1into effect. Ad)inistrative re$ulations cannot etend the la1 nor a)end a

le$islative enact)ent0 ad)inistrative re$ulations )ust be in har)on% 1ith the

provisions of the la1,@ and in a conflict bet1een the basic la1 and an i)ple)entin$

rule or re$ulation, the for)er )ust prevail.55

CSC Me)orandu) Circular No. 7/, s. *


25/25

there re)ains the issue of ho1 the CSC should appl% the civil service la1 to

!"8CORP, $iven the ee)ptions provided in the latter+s charter. 8oes the 1ordin$ of

Section ; of RA 97

Documents

Statutory Construction Full Text Cases (Phil Guardian Brotherhood, Navarro, Trade Investment)