Navarro v. Ermita
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case concerns the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the newly created province met the statutory requirements for population and land area as stipulated in the Local Government Code of 1991. Petitioners argued that the province failed to meet these requirements, rendering its creation unconstitutional. Procedural History: The petition was initially filed challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355. The Supreme Court, in a decision dated February 10, 2010, granted the petition, declaring the law unconstitutional for failing to meet the population and land area requirements. The Court also declared null and void the implementing rule that exempted island provinces from the land area requirement. Subsequently, motions for reconsideration were filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Governor of Dinagat Islands, which are now being resolved. The Petition: The petitioners sought the declaration of unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355, arguing that the Province of Dinagat Islands did not meet the minimum population of 250,000 inhabitants and the minimum land area of 2,000 square kilometers required by the Local Government Code. They also challenged the validity of the implementing rule that provided an exemption from the land area requirement for island provinces. The motions for reconsideration reiterated arguments that the creation of the province was in accordance with the Constitution and the Local Government Code, and that the operative fact doctrine should apply.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 9355, creating the Province of Dinagat Islands, is constitutional, and whether the Province complied with the population and land area requirements under Section 461 of the Local Government Code of 1991. Whether Article 9(2) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code, exempting island provinces from the land area requirement, is valid. Whether the presumption of validity of legislative acts applies in this case. Whether the operative fact doctrine applies in this case.
Ruling
The Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration for lack of merit. It reaffirmed its Decision dated February 10, 2010, declaring Republic Act No. 9355 unconstitutional. The proclamation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of its officials were declared null and void. The provision in Article 9(2) of the IRR stating that the land area requirement shall not apply to island provinces was also declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355 and compliance with population and land area requirements: The Court reiterated that Republic Act No. 9355 failed to comply with the statutory requirements for the creation of a province under Section 461 of the Local Government Code of 1991. The official population of Dinagat Islands, based on the 2000 Census of Population, was only 106,951, falling short of the 250,000 inhabitants required. Even a special census conducted by the Provincial Government of Surigao del Norte, yielding 371,000, was not certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO) as required by law. Furthermore, the 2007 Census of Population showed a population of only 120,813. The land area of 802.12 square kilometers also failed to meet the statutory requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. The Court emphasized that the evidence on record proved the non-compliance with either the population or territorial requirement. On the validity of Article 9(2) of the IRR: The Court maintained that Article 9(2) of the IRR, which exempts island provinces from the land area requirement, is null and void because this exemption is not found in Section 461 of the Local Government Code. The Court reiterated the principle that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and its implementing rules, the basic law prevails, as the rules cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. The exemption in Section 461(b) of the Local Government Code pertains only to the requirement of territorial contiguity, not to the land area requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. On the presumption of validity and legislative power: The Court rejected the argument that the acts of the Legislature and Executive should be respected due to the presumption of validity. It cited Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which mandates that the creation of a local government unit must be in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code. Since R.A. No. 9355 deviated from these criteria without an amendment to the Code, it violated the Constitution. The Court asserted its duty to nullify acts of other branches that run afoul of the Constitution. On the operative fact doctrine: The Court found the operative fact doctrine inapplicable. Unlike in the League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections case, where the cityhood laws were found to carry out legislative intent to exempt certain LGUs, R.A. No. 9355 was declared unconstitutional due to an "utter failure to comply with either the population or territorial requirement." The Court stated that abandoning its duty to nullify unconstitutional laws simply because a province has begun its existence would be to consent to the perpetuation of illegality and set a dangerous precedent.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands, is declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the statutory requirements for the creation of a province under Section 461 of the Local Government Code of 1991. Specifically, the province did not meet the minimum population requirement of 250,000 inhabitants and the land area requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. The Court also invalidated the provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that exempted island provinces from the land area requirement, as the IRR cannot go beyond the provisions of the basic law.