DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, et al. v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.

G.R. Nos. 196271, 196305, 197221, 197280, 197282, 197392 & 197454, 18 October 2011, EN
BANC (Brion, J.)

On August 1, 1989 or two years after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, Congress acted
through Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)." The initially assenting provinces were Lanao del
Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-tawi. RA No. 6734 scheduled the first regular elections for the
regional officials of the ARMM on a date not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its
ratification.

Thereafter, RA No. 9054 was passed to further enhance the structure of ARMM under R.A.
6734. Along with it is the reset of the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to the second
Monday of September 2001. RA No. 9333 was subsequently passed by Congress to reset the
ARMM regional elections to the 2nd Monday of August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years
thereafter. Unlike RA No. 6734 and RA No. 9054, RA No. 9333 was not ratified in a plebiscite.

Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been held on
August 8, 2011. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had begun preparations for these
elections and had accepted certificates of candidacies for the various regional offices to be elected.
But on June 30, 2011, RA No. 10153 was enacted resetting the ARMM elections to May 2013, to
coincide with the regular national and local elections of the country. With the enactment into law of
RA No. 10153, the COMELEC stopped its preparations for the ARMM elections.

Several cases for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus originating from different parties
arose as a consequence of the passage of RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 questioning the validity
of said laws. On September 13, 2011, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
enjoining the implementation of RA No. 10153 and ordering the incumbent elective officials of
ARMM to continue to perform their functions should these cases not be decided by the end of their
term on September 30, 2011.

The petitioners assailing RA No. 9140, RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 assert that these
laws amend RA No. 9054 and thus, have to comply with the supermajority vote and plebiscite
requirements prescribed under Sections 1 and 3, Article XVII of RA No. 9094 in order to become
effective.

The petitions assailing RA No. 10153 further maintain that it is unconstitutional for its failure
to comply with the three-reading requirement of Section 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution; also
cited as grounds are the alleged violations of the right of suffrage of the people of ARMM, as well as
the failure to adhere to the "elective and representative" character of the executive and legislative
departments of the ARMM. Lastly, the petitioners challenged the grant to the President of the power
to appoint Officers in Charge (OICs) to undertake the functions of the elective ARMM officials until
the officials elected under the May 2013 regular elections shall have assumed office. Corrolarily,
they also argue that the power of appointment also gave the President the power of control over the
ARMM, in complete violation of Section 16, Article X of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections

RULING:

1. YES. The Court agreed with respondent Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on its position that
the Constitution mandates synchronization, citing Sections 1, 2 and 5, Article XVIII (Transitory
Provisions) of the 1987 Constitution. While the Constitution does not expressly state that Congress
has to synchronize national and local elections, the clear intent towards this objective can be
gleaned from the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution, which show the extent to
which the Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making adjustments to the terms of the
incumbent officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections.

The objective behind setting a common termination date for all elective officials, done among
others through the shortening the terms of the twelve winning senators with the least number of
votes, is to synchronize the holding of all future elections whether national or local to once every
three years. This intention finds full support in the discussions during the Constitutional Commission
deliberations. Furthermore, to achieve synchronization, Congress necessarily has to reconcile the
schedule of the ARMMs regular elections (which should have been held in August 2011 based on
RA No. 9333) with the fixed schedule of the national and local elections (fixed by RA No. 7166 to be
held in May 2013).

In Osme v. Commission on Elections, the court thus explained:

“It is clear from the aforequoted provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the terms of office of
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, the local officials, the President and the Vice-
President have been synchronized to end on the same hour, date and year noon of June 30, 1992.

“It is likewise evident from the wording of the above-mentioned Sections that the term
ofsynchronizationis used synonymously as the phraseholding simultaneouslysince this is the precise
intent in terminating their Office Tenure on the sameday or occasion.This common termination date
will synchronize future elections to once every three years (Bernas, the Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines, Vol. II, p. 605).

“That the election for Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the local officials
(under Sec. 2, Art. XVIII) will have to be synchronized with the election for President and Vice
President (under Sec. 5, Art. XVIII) is likewise evident from the x x xrecords of the proceedings in the
Constitutional Commission. [Emphasis supplied.]”

Although called regional elections, the ARMM elections should be included among the
elections to be synchronized as it is a "local" election based on the wording and structure of the
Constitution. Regional elections in the ARMM for the positions of governor, vice-governor and
regional assembly representatives fall within the classification of "local" elections, since they pertain
to the elected officials who will serve within the limited region of ARMM. From the perspective of the
Constitution, autonomous regions are considered one of the forms of local governments, as evident
from Article X of the Constitution entitled "Local Government", autonomous regions are established
and discussed under Sections 15 to 21 of this Article the article wholly devoted to Local
Government.
2. NO. Congress, in passing RA No. 10153, acted strictly within its constitutional mandate. Given an
array of choices, it acted within due constitutional bounds and with marked reasonableness in light of
the necessary adjustments that synchronization demands. Congress, therefore, cannot be accused
of any evasion of a positive duty or of a refusal to perform its duty nor is there reason to accord merit
to the petitioners claim of grave abuse of discretion.

In relation with synchronization, both autonomy and the synchronization of national and local
elections are recognized and established constitutional mandates, with one being as compelling as
the other. If their compelling force differs at all, the difference is in their coverage; synchronization
operates on and affects the whole country, while regional autonomy as the term suggests directly
carries a narrower regional effect although its national effect cannot be discounted.

In all these, the need for interim measures is dictated by necessity; out-of-the-way
arrangements and approaches were adopted or used in order to adjust to the goal or objective in
sight in a manner that does not do violence to the Constitution and to reasonably accepted norms.
Under these limitations, the choice of measures was a question of wisdom left to congressional
discretion.

However, the holdover contained in R.A. No. 10153, for those who were elected in executive
and legislative positions in the ARMM during the 2008-2011 term as an option that Congress could
have chosen because a holdover violates Section 8, Article X of the Constitution. In the case of the
terms of local officials, their term has been fixed clearly and unequivocally, allowing no room for any
implementing legislation with respect to the fixed term itself and no vagueness that would allow an
interpretation from this Court. Thus, the term of three years for local officials should stay at three (3)
years as fixed by the Constitution and cannot be extended by holdover by Congress.

RA No. 10153, does not in any way amend what the organic law of the ARMM(RA No. 9054)
sets outs in terms of structure of governance. What RA No. 10153 in fact only does is to"appoint
officersin-charge for the Office of the Regional Governor, Regional Vice Governor and Members of
the Regional Legislative Assembly who shall perform the functions pertaining to the said offices until
the officials duly elected in the May 2013 elections shall have qualified and assumed office." This
power is far different from appointing elective ARMM officials for the abbreviated term ending on the
assumption to office of the officials elected in the May 2013 elections. It must be therefore
emphasized that the law must be interpreted as an interim measure to synchronize elections and
must not be interpreted otherwise.