Ali v. Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament

G.R. Nos. E-02219 & E-02235 · 2025-09-30 · J. ZALAMEDA, J.: · Primary: Political; Secondary: Remedial

MODIFICATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Petitioners in G.R. No. E-02219 (Ali et al.) and G.R. No. E-02235 (Macapaar et al.) assail Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77), the "Bangsamoro Redistricting Act of 2025," which amended Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 58 (BAA 58). BAA 77 was enacted on August 19, 2025, and signed into law on August 28, 2025, during the election period for the October 13, 2025 BARMM Parliamentary Elections. Petitioners argue that BAA 77 violates various constitutional and statutory provisions, including those related to election periods, gerrymandering, and the Bangsamoro Organic Law. Procedural History: Petitioners Ali et al. filed their Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on August 29, 2025. Petitioners Macapaar et al. filed theirs on September 1, 2025. The cases were consolidated, and the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on September 15, 2025, enjoining the enforcement of BAA 77. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) suspended its preparations for the elections. The COMELEC filed a Comment with Manifestation, highlighting its predicament due to the TRO and the conflicting legal frameworks (BAA 58 vs. BAA 77). Petitioners also filed motions seeking clarification and urging the resumption of preparations under BAA 58. The Petition: Petitioners seek the declaration of BAA 77 as unconstitutional and void. They argue that its enactment during the election period violates the Voter's Registration Act, that it creates non-contiguous districts in violation of the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the Constitution, that it unlawfully expands the President's appointment powers, and that it is designed to confuse the electorate and frustrate the elections. They also contend that BAA 77 violates provisions on free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, embraces more than one subject, and lacks proper publication. Petitioners Macapaar et al. specifically prayed for the COMELEC to resume preparations under BAA 58.

Issue(s)

Whether Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77) is unconstitutional and void for violating national election laws, the Bangsamoro Organic Law, and the Constitution, and whether the petitions satisfy the requisites for judicial review. Whether BAA 77 was enacted in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8189 (Voter's Registration Act of 1996) by altering election precincts during the election period. Whether BAA 77 is void for creating parliamentary districts with non-contiguous, non-compact, and non-adjacent territories, contrary to the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the Constitution. Whether Section 4 of BAA 77 is unconstitutional for unlawfully expanding the President's appointment powers. Whether Section 5 of BAA 77 is unconstitutional for severing the link between residence, voter registration, and representation. Whether Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 58 (BAA 58) can substitute for BAA 77 for the conduct of the October 13, 2025 BARMM Parliamentary Elections, and if the TRO against BAA 77 meant COMELEC could proceed under BAA 58.

Ruling

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petitions, declared Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and made the injunction against its enforcement PERMANENT. Respondents COMELEC and BTA are ENJOINED from enforcing BAA 77. The Court also declared Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 58 (BAA 58) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court directed the BTA to immediately undertake, by October 30, 2025, the determination of parliamentary districts in strict compliance with the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the criteria laid down in the Decision. Thereafter, COMELEC is DIRECTED to PROMPTLY PROCEED with preparations and conduct elections not later than March 31, 2026.

Ratio Decidendi

On the constitutionality of BAA 77 and the requisites for judicial review: The Court found that the petitions satisfied the requisites for judicial review: an actual case or controversy existed due to BAA 77's enactment and its impact on the upcoming elections; petitioners had legal standing as registered voters and concerned citizens directly affected by the redistricting; the constitutionality of BAA 77 was raised at the earliest opportunity; and the issue of its constitutionality was the very lis mota of the cases. Direct resort to the Supreme Court was justified due to the genuine issues of constitutionality, transcendental importance, cases of first impression, exigency, and the need for prompt resolution before the elections. On BAA 77 violating Section 5 of the Voter's Registration Act: The Court held that BAA 77 is illegal and void because it altered election precincts after the start of the election period (August 14, 2025), in direct contravention of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8189. The redistricting under BAA 77 necessarily altered precinct configurations by reapportioning barangays and municipalities into new parliamentary districts, which would require reprinting ballots, updating voters' lists, and causing confusion. This legislative act, enacted on August 19, 2025, was therefore invalid and could not be applied to the October 13, 2025 elections. On BAA 77 violating the contiguity requirement: The Court found BAA 77 void for violating the requirement that each parliamentary district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction, as mandated by Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law and Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution. The redistricting under BAA 77 resulted in non-contiguous districts in Lanao del Sur (Tagaloan II), Maguindanao del Norte (Sultan Mastura), and Cotabato City (Barangay Poblacion VII), isolating these areas from the rest of their respective districts without any practical justification, thus constituting gerrymandering. On Section 4 of BAA 77 expanding presidential appointment powers: Section 4 of BAA 77, which authorizes the President to appoint "Interim Parliamentary District Representatives" for newly created districts after the deadline for filing Certificates of Candidacy (COCs), was declared unconstitutional. This provision violates Article VII, Section 7(b) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, which mandates that district representatives shall be elected through direct plurality vote. The Court noted that presidential appointment powers were limited to the interim BTA and cannot extend to the regular parliamentary governance, undermining the principle of elected representation. On Section 5 of BAA 77 severing the link between residence and representation: Section 5 of BAA 77, which allows aspirants who filed COCs to retain their candidacy in their original districts despite their barangay or municipality being reassigned, was found unconstitutional. This provision severs the constitutional link between residence, voter registration, and representation, forcing candidates to run in districts where they may no longer reside or be registered voters, and disenfranchising voters by detaching candidates from their actual constituencies. This violates the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service and the requirement for representatives to be registered voters and residents of their districts. On BAA 58's inability to substitute for BAA 77 and the TRO's effect: The Court clarified that the invalidation of BAA 77 does not automatically revive BAA 58. BAA 58 was rendered inoperable and constitutionally infirm by the exclusion of the Province of Sulu from the BARMM, as decided in Province of Sulu v. Medialdea. Reviving BAA 58 would reinstate a defective framework that distorts parliamentary representation and disenfranchises voters. The Court also noted that the COMELEC's suspension of preparations was not directly mandated by the TRO, which only enjoined the enforcement of BAA 77, not the resumption of preparations under BAA 58. Ultimately, the Court found that neither BAA 58 nor BAA 77 could validly serve as the legal framework for the elections due to their respective infirmities, necessitating new legislation.

Main Doctrine

Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77) is declared unconstitutional and void for violating national election laws, specifically Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8189 (Voter's Registration Act of 1996), by altering election precincts after the commencement of the election period. Furthermore, BAA 77 is void for creating parliamentary districts with non-contiguous territories, contrary to Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law and Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution. The Court also found Section 4 of BAA 77 unconstitutional for unlawfully expanding the President's appointment powers beyond what the Bangsamoro Organic Law permits, and Section 5 unconstitutional for severing the link between residence, voter registration, and representation. Consequently, the TRO against BAA 77 is made permanent, and the Court clarifies that the invalidation of BAA 77 does not automatically revive BAA 58 because supervening events, particularly the exclusion of the Province of Sulu, rendered BAA 58 inoperable and constitutionally infirm.