Case Summary (G.R. No. 196271)
Procedural History
The Supreme Court’s October 18, 2011 en banc decision upheld Republic Act No. 10153, which synchronized Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) elections from August 2011 to May 2013 and authorized the President to appoint officers-in-charge (OICs). Multiple motions for reconsideration contested that ruling.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
Because the decision date is 2012, the 1987 Constitution applies. Key provisions include Article X (local governments and autonomous regions), Article VII, Section 16 (presidential appointment power), and the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) on election synchronization.
Synchronization Mandate Includes ARMM Elections
The Transitory Provisions demonstrate an intent for synchronized elections—“a single election in 1992 for all elective officials.” Court precedents (e.g., Osmeña v. COMELEC) affirm that national and local elections, by constitutional mandate, include ARMM regional elections. Autonomous regions are among “local governments” under Article X, Section 1, thus their elections qualify as local elections.
RA 10153 Does Not Amend RA 9054 but Fills a Legislative Gap
RA 9054 (Second Organic Act) fixed only the date for the first ARMM elections and left subsequent dates to legislative discretion. Laws such as RA 9333 and RA 10153 merely fill that gap without amending RA 9054’s provisions. Judicial construction prohibits “supplying omissions” by courts; only Congress may fill legislative lacunae.
Supermajority Requirement in RA 9054 Is Unconstitutional
RA 9054’s Article XVII, Section 1, requiring a two-thirds vote in each House of Congress to amend the Organic Act, unconstitutionally binds future legislatures and creates an irrepealable law. Under the Constitution (Article VI, Section 16[2]), ordinary legislation requires only a majority vote of a quorum.
Plebiscite Requirement in RA 9054 Is Overbroad
RA 9054’s Article XVII, Section 3, mandates a plebiscite for all amendments to the Organic Act. The Constitution’s plebiscite requirement (Article X, Section 18) applies only to creation of autonomous regions and to amendments “essential to such creation.” Universal plebiscite mandates would unduly hamper ARMM governance and legislative responsiveness.
Holdover Provision Exceeds Constitutional Term Limits
Section 7(1), Article VII of RA 9054 allows ARMM officials to “continue in effect until their successors are elected and qualified,” extending three-year terms beyond the constitutional limit (Article X, Section 8). While previous holdovers applied to barangay officials (whose terms aren’t constitutionally fixed), local officials including ARMM elective officers are subject to a three-year term limit that Congress cannot extend by legislative holdovers.
COMELEC Has No Power to Call Special Elections in ARMM
The Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) authorizes COMELEC to postpone or continue elections only upon specified causes (violence, fraud, force majeure) and within 30 days of cessation thereof. RA 10153 lawfully set the next ARMM election date; COMELEC cannot override that legislative schedule or shorten terms against the Constitution’s three-year limit.
Presidential Appointment of OICs Is Constitutional
Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution grants the President broad appointment powers, including “all other officers … not otherwise provided for by law.” RA 10153’s Section 3 empowers the President to appoint OICs for ARMM Governor, Vice Governor, and Regional Legislative Assembly members until May 2013 incumbency. This exercise of executive appointment power is distinct from “supervisory” authority (Article X, Section 16) a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196271)
Facts and Relevant Background
- The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) first elected officials under RA 9054 in September 2001; RA 9054 did not set dates for subsequent ARMM elections.
- The 1987 Constitution’s Transitory Provisions mandate synchronized national and local elections every three years, beginning May 1992.
- Congress passed RA 10153 in 2011 to postpone the August 2011 ARMM elections to May 2013 to achieve synchronization.
- RA 10153 authorizes the President to appoint interim officers-in-charge (OICs) for ARMM Governor, Vice Governor, and Assembly members until the 2013 elections.
- Multiple petitioners filed consolidated petitions and motions for reconsideration challenging RA 10153’s constitutionality and related provisions of RA 9054.
Procedural History
- On October 18, 2011, the Supreme Court, en banc, upheld RA 10153’s constitutionality and lifted the TRO issued on September 13, 2011.
- Petitioners filed seven motions for reconsideration across G.R. Nos. 196271, 196305, 197221, 197280, 197282, 197392, and 197454.
- On February 28, 2012, the Court denied all motions for reconsideration and reaffirmed its decision.
Issues Presented
- Does the constitutional mandate to synchronize elections extend to ARMM?
- Does RA 10153 amend RA 9054 or merely fill a legislative gap?
- Are the supermajority and plebiscite requirements in RA 9054 constitutional?
- Is the holdover provision in RA 9054 valid?
- May COMELEC call special ARMM elections outside RA 10153’s schedule?
- Does granting the President power to appoint OICs to elective ARMM offices exceed constitutional bounds?
- Are OIC appointments a permissible interim measure?
- Must the Executive await finality before implementing a Court decision under judicial courtesy?
Court’s Discussion
A. Constitutional Mandate of Synchronization Includes ARMM Elections
- Transitory Provisions (Art. XVIII, Secs. 1–5) and Commission debates show intent for one synchronized election in 1992 for all elective offices down to municipalities.
- ARMM, listed under “Local Government”