Title
Supreme Court
Province of Sulu vs. Medialdea
Case
G.R. No. 242255
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2024
The Court upheld Sulu Province's rejection of inclusion in BARMM, declaring the inclusion unconstitutional based on the plebiscite vote against ratifying the Bangsamoro Organic Law, affirming local autonomy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242255)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • The petition involves the Province of Sulu, represented by its Governor Abdusakur A. Tan II, along with various intervenors and respondents, including the Philippine Association of Islamic Accountants (PAIA), Governor Esmael G. Mangudadatu, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
    • Related cases included petitions from the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) and Congressmen Abdullah D. Dimaporo and Mohamad Khalid Q. Dimaporo.
  • Issue before the Court
    • The central issue revolves around the constitutionality of including the Province of Sulu in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) under Republic Act No. 11054 (Bangsamoro Organic Law).
    • The plebiscite ratifying the Bangsamoro Organic Law showed that the people of Sulu voted against inclusion in BARMM, whereas the aggregate votes of ARMM (including Sulu) overwhelmingly ratified the law.
  • Lower Court Decision
    • The Supreme Court initially ruled, on September 9, 2024, that including the Province of Sulu in BARMM was unconstitutional, as Sulu’s voters rejected the organic law.
    • The Court upheld the constitutionality of the other provisions of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, excluding Sulu’s inclusion.
  • Motions for Partial Reconsideration
    • BARMM government filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration asserting:
      • It was constitutionally valid for the ARMM provinces and cities to vote as one "geographic area".
      • No violation occurred to Sulu’s local autonomy or suffrage rights.
      • The Court should recognize BARMM’s operative presence in Sulu as a matter of equity and justice.
    • The Office of the Solicitor General (representing multiple respondents) argued:
      • The entire ARMM is a single voting unit constitutionally.
      • The Legislature has the authority to treat ARMM as one geographic unit.
      • Excluding Sulu causes severe fiscal and governance impairments.
      • Operative fact doctrine should apply for continuity.
    • Petitioner-intervenor Algamar A. Latiph echoed calls for including Sulu and for suspending execution of the exclusion until after 2025 elections.
    • Other intervenors (including Atty. Laisa Masuhud Alamia and a group led by Don Mustapha Arbison Loong) similarly moved for reconsideration, emphasizing historical and cultural ties, legal and practical consequences, and urging applicability of the operative fact doctrine.
  • Court’s Procedural Acts
    • The Court allowed motions to file comments; none were filed.
    • Resolutions and notices were issued to parties to respond.

Issues:

  • Whether the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in BARMM despite its rejection of the Bangsamoro Organic Law violated the constitutional requirement that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in the plebiscite may be included in an autonomous region.
  • Whether the treatment of the former ARMM as one single geographic voting unit in the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s plebiscite is valid and constitutional.
  • Whether the doctrine of operative fact should apply to preserve actions taken under the assumption that Sulu was part of BARMM.
  • Whether exclusion of Sulu disregards the historical, cultural, and political integrity of the Bangsamoro people and identity.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.