Title
Sinsuat, et al. vs. Ebrahim, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 271741
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2024
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the plebiscite provisions of BAAs 53, 54, and 55, affirming that affected voters from Sultan Kudarat must be included in voting.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 271741)

Key Places and New Municipalities

Affected localities: Municipality of Sultan Kudarat and Municipality of Datu Odin Sinsuat, both in Maguindanao del Norte. New municipalities created by BTA legislation: (1) Nuling (BAA 53) from barangays of Sultan Kudarat; (2) Datu Sinsuat Balabaran (BAA 54) from barangays of Datu Odin Sinsuat; and (3) Sheik Abas Hamza (BAA 55) from barangays of Datu Odin Sinsuat. COMELEC scheduled plebiscites pursuant to COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 11011 and 11012.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Relevant enactments and actions: Bangsamoro Organic Law approved July 21, 2018; Republic Act No. 11550 (charter of Maguindanao del Norte and del Sur) enacted May 27, 2021; Bangsamoro Local Government Code (BTA LGC) signed September 28, 2023; BAAs 53–55 passed December 20, 2023 and signed December 26, 2023. Petitions filed February 15, 2024 (G.R. No. 271741) and February 29, 2024 (G.R. No. 271972). COMELEC promulgated Resolutions Nos. 11011 and 11012 on July 8, 2024 setting plebiscite dates (September 7 and 21, 2024). The petitions were consolidated and the Court rendered judgment addressing constitutionality and injunctive relief.

Governing Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional framework: the 1987 Constitution governs (Article X, Section 10 on creation/division/merger/abolition and plebiscite requirement). Organic and local laws: the Bangsamoro Organic Law (RA No. 11054) (powers of Bangsamoro Government, BTA during transition, and requirement to comply with RA 7160 criteria), the Bangsamoro Local Government Code (BTA LGC), and Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) (criteria and procedures for creation/division/merger of LGUs). Jurisprudential authorities cited include Padilla, Umali, Cagas, and related precedents interpreting “political units directly affected” and COMELEC’s authority on scheduling plebiscites.

Relief Sought and Core Legal Questions

Relief: petitions for certiorari (and prohibition), urgent motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and prayers to enjoin COMELEC from conducting plebiscites pursuant to BAAs 53–55. Core legal questions: (1) whether the BTA and Chief Minister had authority to enact and approve BAAs creating municipalities during transition; (2) whether the BAAs complied with constitutional and statutory criteria (RA 7160 and BTA LGC) for creation/division of municipalities; (3) whether the BAAs’ plebiscite clauses properly defined the electorate (i.e., who are the “political units directly affected” entitled to vote); (4) the validity of schedule provisions for plebiscites and whether COMELEC’s scheduling falls within its discretion; and (5) whether the Chief Minister may appoint interim municipal officials.

Petitioners’ Principal Arguments

G.R. No. 271741: BAAs 54 and 55 were enacted by respondents lacking authority, amounted to amending a Congressional enactment, violated plebiscite rules under Article X, Section 10, contravened RA 7160, and improperly authorized Chief Minister appointments to elective offices. G.R. No. 271972: Title of BAA 53 allegedly violates Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution; plebiscite limited to barangays comprising the new municipality excludes “political units directly affected” (violating Article X, Section 10); BAA 53’s sixty-day plebiscite requirement conflicts with RA 7160’s 120-day period; improper metes-and-bounds and revenue/income certification failures; absence of petition and prior consultation; equal protection and delegation concerns; and asserted forgery of Chief Minister’s signature on BAA 53.

Respondents’ Principal Defenses

COMELEC: constitutional and statutory challenges are premature; COMELEC’s mandate is to administer plebiscites and it may set dates; factual issues and hierarchy of courts arguments. BTA and Chief Minister: procedural objections (hierarchy of courts, political question, lack of ripeness), claims that RA 7160 and its IRR do not apply to BARMM or that compliance raises factual disputes for trial; asserted BTA authority to legislate and create municipalities under the Bangsamoro Organic Law; defense of plebiscite provisions and of the Chief Minister’s power to appoint interim officials during transition.

Court’s Threshold: Justiciability and Standing

The Court found an actual controversy, established petitioners’ standing (petitioners are registered voters or municipal officials of affected municipalities, with municipal resolutions opposing the BTA bills), that constitutional questions were raised promptly after BAA effectivity, and that the petitions presented the lis mota. The Court declined respondents’ prematurity and hierarchy-of-courts objections in light of COMELEC’s promulgation of plebiscite schedules (Resolutions Nos. 11011 and 11012), holding that the Court may adjudicate when a fundamental constitutional right is clearly implicated and of transcendental importance.

Title Challenge to BAAs 53–55

The Court rejected the argument that the titles of BAAs 53, 54, and 55 violated Article VI, Section 26(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Applying precedent (Alalayan and Sumulong), the Court held the titles sufficiently informed the legislature and public of the general object—creation of municipalities within Maguindanao del Norte—and were not misleading as in Lidasan, where an assailed law affected two provinces but named only one.

Authority of BTA and Chief Minister to Create Municipalities

The Court held that the BTA, as the interim Bangsamoro government during transition, possesses legislative authority to exercise powers vested in the Bangsamoro Government, including creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of municipalities and barangays, as expressly granted by Article V, Section 2(1) and further confirmed by Article XVI on transition powers. The “interim” or “transition” character of the BTA does not limit its authority to enact laws necessary, incidental, or proper to exercise Bangsamoro powers.

Plebiscite Clause: Constitutionality of the “Barangays Comprising the Municipality” Phrase

The Court found unconstitutional the uniform phrase in Section 5 of BAAs 53–55 that limited the plebiscite electorate to “qualified voters in a plebiscite to be conducted in the barangays comprising the municipality pursuant to Section 2 hereof,” because that formulation excluded qualified voters of the existing “mother” municipalities who are “political units directly affected.” Under Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution and analogous provisions in the Bangsamoro Organic Law (Article VI, Section 10), the plebiscite must be held in the political units directly affected, which includes both the inhabitants of the territories to be detached and those in the parent municipality whose political and economic interests would be altered. The Court relied on Padilla, Umali, and Tan to define “political units directly affected” broadly to include all units materially affected by territorial/political changes.

COMELEC Scheduling and Plea on Plebiscite Periods

The Court rejected petitioner arguments that the BAAs’ sixty-day plebiscite scheduling conflicted with RA 7160’s 120-day prescriptive period. The Court explained that (1) RA 7160’s 120-day period is a range within which COMELEC may schedule the plebiscite, and (2) COMELEC has constitutionally granted authority and residual discretion to set or adjust plebiscite dates (citing Cagas), including designating dates outside statutory windows where necessary to ensure free and credible exercise of suffrage. The COMELEC had in fact scheduled the plebiscites beyond the 60-day window, rendering the petitioners’ scheduling objections moot.

Applicability of RA 7160 and Bangsamoro LGC to BARMM

The Court held that the Bangsamoro Organic Law explicitly requires compliance with the criteria laid down in RA 7160 for creation/division of LGUs within BARMM. The Bangsamoro LGC mirrors RA 7160’s substantive criteria (income, population, land area, technical descriptions/metes-and-bounds) and the two Acts’ provisions are aligned; consequently RA 7160’s criteria apply in BARMM as incorporated by the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the BTA LGC.

Compliance with RA 7160 Criteria: Factual Matters and Burden of Proof

On claims that BAAs 53–55 failed to satisfy RA 7160 criteria (income certification, population, land area, metes-and-bounds, effect on parent municipality’s income classification), the Court declined to resolve these fact-intensive issues in the certiorari petitions. The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality for legislative acts and local enactments and recognized that petitioners bear the burden to overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. Because resolution of compliance with RA 7160’s requisites would require factual inquiry and evidentiary determinations (beyond the Court’s role on a certiorari proceeding), those issues should be litigated in a trial setting where evidence can be adduced and evaluated.

Appointment of Interim Municipal Officials

The Court upheld the validity of the BAAs’ provision authorizing the Chief Minister to appoint municipal officials to serve interim terms until successors are elected and qualified. The appointing authority was deemed proper as an exercise of delegated legislative power and as necessary and incidental to the creation of new municipalities during the transition period—analogous to constitutional provisions allowing the legislature to vest appointment powers for interim officials in appropriate authorities.

Injunctive Relief: Final Prohibitory Injunction Issued

Holding that the BAAs’ plebiscite clause violated the Constitution and the Bangsamoro Organic Law by disenfranchising qualified voters of the mother municipalities, the Court permanently enjoined COM

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms