Case Summary (G.R. No. 180050)
Taxpayer Petitioners’ Second Challenge
On November 10, 2006, petitioners—taxpayers and Surigao del Norte residents—filed a second certiorari petition challenging RA 9355. They alleged Dinagat’s land area (802.12 sq km) and population (106,951 in 2006) failed to meet Section 461 of the LGC (2,000 sq km or 250,000 inhabitants) and Article X, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution.
Supreme Court’s February 10, 2010 Decision
A majority granted the petition, declaring RA 9355 unconstitutional for non-compliance with territorial and population criteria. The Court also struck down IRR Art. 9(2), which exempted island provinces from the land-area requirement, as beyond the LGC’s authority, and invalidated the province’s proclamation and election of officials.
Post-Decision Motions and COMELEC Resolution
The Republic (via OSG) and Dinagat filed timely motions for reconsideration, denied in a May 12, 2010 Resolution. COMELEC then issued Resolution No. 8790 detailing electoral configurations contingent on the Supreme Court’s final ruling, warning of vote nullification and special elections if the Decision became final pre- or post-May 10, 2010 polls.
Attempted Intervention and Procedural Denials
Elected Surigao del Norte officials moved on June 18, 2010 for leave to intervene and to file reconsideration of the May 12 Resolution, citing pending injury to their elected positions. On July 20, 2010, the Court denied intervention under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, holding motions to intervene must precede rendition of final judgment.
Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment
Despite the Decision’s finality (Entry of Judgment May 18, 2010), movants-intervenors filed on October 29, 2010 an Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment, asserting their concrete legal interest arose only after the COMELEC configuration made their positions vulnerable to annulment post-election.
En Banc’s Due Process and Locus Standi Analysis
By a 9–6 majority, the en banc Court granted the motion to lift entry of judgment and permitted intervention. It held movants-intervenors had a substantial personal stake and no other adequate remedy, invoking due process and equity to override technical finality on grounds of dire prejudice.
Statutory Construction of LGC and IRR
On the merits, the majority construed Section 461’s exemption of island provinces from contiguity to implicitly dispense with its land-area requirement. It reasoned Congress inadvertently omitted this in the LGC, and IRR Art. 9(2) was meant to cure that oversight,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 180050)
Facts and Antecedents
- Republic Act No. 9355 creating the Province of Dinagat Islands was approved on October 2, 2006.
- On December 3, 2006, a COMELEC-supervised plebiscite ratified its creation: 69,943 affirmative vs. 63,502 negative votes.
- Interim provincial officers took their oath on January 26, 2007; duly elected officials assumed on July 1, 2007.
- Petitioners—former Surigao del Norte officials—filed a certiorari petition (G.R. No. 175158) on November 10, 2006, challenging RA 9355; dismissed on technical grounds.
- A second certiorari petition alleged RA 9355 violated Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 461 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) for failing to meet the minimum land area (2,000 sq km) or population (250,000) requisites.
- On February 10, 2010, the Supreme Court declared RA 9355 unconstitutional, invalidated Dinagat’s proclamation and elections, and struck down Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.
Procedural History
- Republic (OSG) and Dinagat filed motions for reconsideration; denied by Resolution of May 12, 2010.
- Both filed second motions for reconsideration; noted without action on June 29, 2010, per Rule 52, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.
- On June 18, 2010, newly elected Surigao del Norte officials (“movants-intervenors”) moved to intervene and admit a reconsideration motion, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 8790’s impact on their election.
- The Court denied intervention on July 20, 2010, as motions to intervene must precede final judgment.
- Movants-intervenors filed a reconsideration motion on September 7, 2010; meanwhile an Entry of Judgment was made on October 5, 2010.
- On October 29, 2010, movants-intervenors filed an Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and compel resolution of their pending reconsideration motion.
Issues Presented
- Whether movants-intervenors acquired a justiciable interest post-judgment sufficient to warrant intervention.
- Whether the Supreme Court may recall a final and executory Entry of Judgment under exceptional circumstances.
- Whether Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR validly exempts island provinces from the 2,000 sq km land area requirement.
- Whether RA 9355, as a subsequent law, effectively amended Section 461 of the Local Government Code