G.R. No. 180050 - Navarro vs. Ermita

On October 2, 2006, the President signed Republic Act No. 9355, creating the Province of Dinagat Islands.
A mandatory plebiscite was held on December 3, 2006 under the Local Government Code; it yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes.

The President appointed an interim provincial government, whose officials took oath on January 26, 2007.
In the May 14, 2007 elections, voters elected the first regular set of provincial officials, who assumed office on July 1, 2007.

On November 10, 2006, petitioners Navarro, Bernal and Medina filed G.R. No. 175158, challenging RA 9355 on constitutional grounds; it was dismissed on technical defects.
Undeterred, they filed G.R. No. 180050 on October 30, 2007.

On February 10, 2010, the Court granted the certiorari petition, ruling RA 9355 violated Section 461 of the Local Government Code (LGC) by failing land-area and population thresholds, and voided the province’s proclamation and elections.
Article 9(2) of the LGC’s IRR (exempting “one or more islands” from the land-area requirement) was declared void for being beyond Section 461’s scope.
Motions for reconsideration filed by the Republic (via the OSG) and Dinagat were denied in a May 12, 2010 Resolution. Second motions were noted without action in June 2010.

Anticipating the Decision’s finality, COMELEC Resolution 8790 (March 9, 2010) provided that if the Decision became final pre-election, elections for provincial and congressional seats in Surigao del Norte would be postponed; if post-election, elections would be nullified and special elections held.
Newly-elected officials of Surigao del Norte faced nullification of their May 10, 2010 results if the Decision stood.

On June 18, 2010, these officials moved to intervene and to file a motion for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution.
On July 20, 2010, the Court denied their motion as untimely, citing Rule 19, Sec. 2, because judgment had been rendered.
On September 7, 2010, they sought reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution.
On October 5, 2010, the Clerk of Court entered the February 10, 2010 Decision as final and executory.
On October 29, 2010, the same officials filed an Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment, aiming to reopen the final Decision and renew their motion to intervene.

Do the movants-intervenors, as newly-elected officials, have locus standi and timely cause to intervene after the Case had become final and executory?
May a final Entry of Judgment be recalled to entertain post-judgment motions that effectively seek another reconsideration of the Decision?

Does RA 9355, in effect, amend LGC Section 461 or incorporate Article 9(2) of its IRR to exempt island provinces from the 2,000 sq. km land-area requirement?
Does Section 461’s exemption from territorial contiguity for multi-island provinces also imply exemption from the minimum land-area threshold?
In light of Section 461 and Article 3, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, is RA 9355 constitutional if Dinagat Islands meets the income requirement but falls short on population and land-area?