Case Digest (G.R. No. 242255)
Facts:
Province of Sulu v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 242255, G.R. No. 243246, and G.R. No. 243693, November 26, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated matters arose from petitions challenging the constitutionality of provisions of Republic Act No. 11054 (the Bangsamoro Organic Law or BOL) and seeking to prevent the plebiscite ratifying it; in its September 9, 2024 Decision the Court denied the consolidated petitions generally but declared void, as unconstitutional, the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).The original appeals (consolidated G.R. numbers above) concerned whether the BOL lawfully treated the provinces and cities composing the former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as a single "geographic area" for voting in the ratifying plebiscite, resulting in Sulu's inclusion in BARMM despite a local majority "no" vote. The September 9 ruling held that each province, city, and geographic area must independently vote to be included in an autonomous region and therefore declared Sulu's inclusion unconstitutional while upholding the remaining challenged provisions of the BOL.
Following that Decision, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), through Chief Minister Ahod B. Ebrahim and the Bangsamoro Attorney General’s Office, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Oct. 1, 2024). The Office of the Solicitor General likewise filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on behalf of several national respondents (Oct. 1, 2024). Atty. Algamar A. Latiph, as intervenor, filed a separate motion for partial reconsideration (Oct. 1, 2024). Other movants included Atty. Laisa Masuhud Alamia (Oct. 8, 2024) and a group identified as Loong et al. (Oct. 18, 2024); each sought, among other prayers, reversal of the exclusion of Sulu or suspension of execution pending further proceedings.
The Court issued an October 8, 2024 resolution directing comments on the motions within ten days; no comments were filed. The present Resolution resolves those Motions for Partial Reconsideration: after consideration of the pleadings and applicable law and precedent, the Court DENIED th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Motions for Partial Reconsideration be granted to reverse this Court’s September 9, 2024 Decision excluding the Province of Sulu from BARMM?
- Whether Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution (and the BOL’s treatment of the ARMM) permits treating the provinces and cities of the former ARMM as a single "geographic area" such that an aggregate regional vote can override a province’s local majority "no" vote.
- Whether the Court’s September 9, 2024 Decision conflicts with this Court’s prior decision in Sula v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 244587, Jan. 10, 2023).
- Whether the doctrine of operative fact should operate to preserve acts, allocatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)