034 Navarro v.

Executive Secretary
12 April 2011 G.R. No. 180050
TOPIC: Creation and Abolition of Municipal Corporations:
Plebiscite Requirement
PONENTE: Nachura, J.
AUTHOR: Myk
NOTES:
FACTS:
1. 2 October 2006 RA 9355 was passed creating the Province of Dinagat Islands.
2. 3 December 2006 the COMELEC conducted a plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the province under the LGC
(69,943 positive votes & 63,502 negative votes). The PGMA appointed interim provincial officials on 26 January 2007.
During the 2007 elections, the Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1, 2007.
3. Navarro, Bernal, and Medina, former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9355. But it
was dismissed on technical grounds. Their MR was also denied.
4. They filed another petition as taxpayers & residents of Suriago del Norte seeking to nullify RA 9355. They alleged that, if
uncorrected, would perpetuate an illegal act of Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a
large chunk of the provincial territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich resources from the area.
5. They pointed out that Dinagat had a land area of only 802.12 square kilometers and a population of 106,951, failing to comply
with Article X of the Constitution & Section 461 of the LGC.
6. 10 February 2010 the SC granted the petition:
a) Declared RA 9355 unconstitutional for failing to comply with the requirements set forth in the Constitution & LGC.
b) The proclamation of Dinagats elected officials as null and void.
c) It likewise declared null and void Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC (LGC-IRR), stating
that, [t]he land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands
for being beyond the ambit of Article 461 of the LGC, inasmuch as such exemption is not expressly provided in the law.
7. The Republic and Dinagat filed their motions for reconsideration of the decision but these were denied by the court. They also
filed their respective motions for leave of court to admit their second motions for reconsideration, accompanied by their
second motions for reconsideration but these were noted without action by the SC.
8. Movants-intervenors filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors Motion for Reconsideration.
Their grounds for intervening are the following:
a) Movants-intervenors election to their respective offices would necessarily be annulled since Dinagat Islands will
revert to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte and a special election will
have to be conducted for governor, vice governor, and House of Representatives member and Sangguniang
Panlalawigan member for the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte as declared by COMELEC Resolution
No. 8790 stating:
If the Decision becomes final and executory after the election, the Province of Dinagat Islands will revert
to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte. The result of the election
will have to be nullified for the same reasons given in Item b above. A special election for Governor,
Vice Governor, Member, House of Representatives, First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte, and
Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, First District, Surigao del Norte (with Dinagat Islands) will have to
be conducted.
b) as residents of Surigao del Norte and as public servants representing the interests of their constituents, they have a
clear and strong interest in the outcome of this case inasmuch as the reversion of Dinagat as part of the First
Legislative District of Surigao del Norte will affect the latter province such that:
the whole administrative set-up of the province will have to be restructured;
the services of many employees will have to be terminated;
contracts will have to be invalidated; and
projects and other developments will have to be discontinued.
9. The movants-intervenors raised 3 main arguments to challenge the Resolution:
a. that the passage of R.A. No. 9355 operates as an act of Congress amending Section 461 of the LGC;
b. that the exemption from territorial contiguity, when the intended province consists of two or more islands, includes
the exemption from the application of the minimum land area requirement; and
c. that the Operative Fact Doctrine is applicable in the instant case.
10. 20 July 2010 the SC denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors Motion for
Reconsideration on the ground that the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion
of the Court, and that the appropriate time to file the said motion was before and not after the resolution of this case.
11. 5 October 2010 the SC issued an order for Entry of Judgment stating that the case had already become final and executory
on 18 May 2010.
12. The movants-intervenors filed an Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and praying that the Court (a) recall the entry of
judgment, and (b) resolve their motion for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9355 is constitutional.
HELD: Yes, RA 9355 is constitutional and article 9(2) of IRR-LGC is valid.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to:
1. GRANT the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment by movants-intervenors, dated and filed on October 29, 2010;
2. RECONSIDER and SET ASIDE the July 20, 2010 Resolution, and GRANT the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to
File and to Admit Intervenors Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated July 20, 2010;
3. GRANT the Intervenors Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010. The May 12, 2010
Resolution is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Local Government Code of 1991 stating, The land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is
composed of one (1) or more islands, is declared VALID. Accordingly, Republic Act No. 9355 (An Act Creating the
Province of Dinagat Islands) is declared as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the Province of
Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials thereof are declared VALID; and
4. The petition is DISMISSED.
RATIO:
1. Requirements for the creation of an LGU/ province should be liberally construed.
a. It must be pointed out that when the local government unit to be created consists of one (1) or more islands, it is
exempt from the land area requirement as expressly provided in Section 442 and Section 450 of the LGC if the
local government unit to be created is a municipality or a component city, respectively. This exemption is
absent in the enumeration of the requisites for the creation of a province under Section 461 of the LGC, although
it is expressly stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.
i. The physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood that islands or a
group of islands would form part of the land area of a province. The SC inferred that the legislative
intent was expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and Section 450 (for component cities) of
the LGC, but was inadvertently omitted in Section 461 (for provinces). Thus, when the
exemption was expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR, the inclusion was intended to
correct the congressional oversight in Section 461 of the LGC and to reflect the true legislative
intent. It would, then, be in order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article 9(2) of the LGC-
IRR.
b. The component cities and municipalities which consist of islands are exempt from the minimum land area
requirement, pursuant to Sections 450 and 442, respectively, of the LGC. Yet, the province would be made to
comply with the minimum land area criterion of 2,000 square kilometers, even if it consists of several
islands. This would mean that Congress has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a province with
contiguous land area over one composed of islands and negate the greater imperative of development of self-
reliant communities, rural progress, and the delivery of basic services to the constituency. This preferential
option would prove more difficult and burdensome if the 2,000-square-kilometer territory of a province is
scattered because the islands are separated by bodies of water, as compared to one with a contiguous land mass.
c. A very restrictive construction could trench on the equal protection clause, as it actually defeats the purpose of
local autonomy and decentralization as enshrined in the Constitution.
d. The Oversight Committee formulated and issued the appropriate rules and regulations necessary for the efficient
and effective implementation of any and all provisions of this Code, thereby ensuring compliance with the
principles of local autonomy as defined under the Constitution. Hence, the void or missing detail was filled in by
the Oversight Committee in the LGC-IRR.
2. What is more, the land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit, is not conclusive in
showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average annual income of P82,696,433.23 at the
time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance, which is four times more than the minimum
requirement of P20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province.
3. The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and sustainable.
4. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010 elections as mere fait accompli circumstances
which cannot operate in favor of Dinagats existence as a province, they must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is
ready and capable of becoming a province.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

1. It must be borne in mind that the central policy considerations in the creation of local government units are economic
viability, efficient administration, and capability to deliver basic services to their constituents. The criteria prescribed by
the LGC, i.e., income, population and land area, are all designed to accomplish these results. The primordial criterion in
the creation of local government units, particularly of a province, is economic viability.
2. Elementary is the principle that, if the literal application of the law results in absurdity, impossibility, or
injustice, then courts may resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction, such as the legislative history of the
law, or may consider the implementing rules and regulations and pertinent executive issuances in the nature of
executive and/or legislative construction. Pursuant to this principle, Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR should be
deemed incorporated in the basic law, the LGC.
3. Constitution, Article X Local Government
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local
government code and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political
units directly affected.
4. LGC, Title IV, Chapter I
Section 461. Requisites for Creation.
(a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as certified by the
Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) based on 1991
constant prices and either of the following requisites:
(i) a continuous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified
by the Lands Management Bureau; or
(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants as certified
by the National Statistics Office:
Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of
the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements
prescribed herein.
(b) The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands or is
separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the
province.
(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive
of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non-recurring income. (Emphasis supplied.)