9/12/2019 G.R. No.

180050

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

EN BANC

G.R. No. 180050 April 12, 2011

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL, and RENE O. MEDINA, Petitioners,

vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, representing the President of the Philippines; Senate of the
Philippines, represented by the SENATE PRESIDENT; House of Representatives, represented by the HOUSE
SPEAKER; GOVERNOR ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS, representing the mother province of Surigao del Norte;
GOVERNOR GERALDINE ECLEO VILLAROMAN, representing the new Province of Dinagat
Islands,Respondents,
CONGRESSMAN FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS, HON. SOL T. MATUGAS, HON. ARTURO CARLOS A. EGAY, JR.,
HON. SIMEON VICENTE G. CASTRENCE, HON. MAMERTO D. GALANIDA, HON. MARGARITO M. LONGOS,
and HON. CESAR M. BAGUNDOL, Intervenors.

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:

For consideration of the Court is the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment dated October 20, 2010 filed by
Movant-Intervenors1 dated and filed on October 29, 2010, praying that the Court (a) recall the entry of judgment, and
(b) resolve their motion for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution.

To provide a clear perspective of the instant motion, we present hereunder a brief background of the relevant
antecedents—

On October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved into law Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355 (An Act Creating
the Province of Dinagat Islands).2 On December 3, 2006, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) conducted the
mandatory plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the province under the Local Government Code (LGC).3The
plebiscite yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes.4 With the approval of the people from both the
mother province of Surigao del

Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat), the President appointed the interim set of provincial officials
who took their oath of office on January 26, 2007. Later, during the May 14, 2007 synchronized elections, the
Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1, 2007.5

On November 10, 2006, petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal and Rene O. Medina, former political
leaders of Surigao del Norte, filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. 175158)
challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355.6 The Court dismissed the petition on technical grounds. Their
motion for reconsideration was also denied.7

Undaunted, petitioners, as taxpayers and residents of the Province of Surigao del Norte, filed another petition for
certiorari8 seeking to nullify R.A. No. 9355 for being unconstitutional. They alleged that the creation of Dinagat as a
new province, 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. They pointed out that when the law was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 square kilometers
only and a population of only 106,951, failing to comply with Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of Section
461 of the LGC, on both counts, viz.—

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.

LGC, Title IV, Chapter I

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 1/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

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
(₱20,000,000.00) 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.)

On February 10, 2010, the Court rendered its Decision9 granting the petition.10 The Decision declared
R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional for failure to comply with the requirements on population and land area
in the creation of a province under the LGC. Consequently, it declared the proclamation of Dinagat and
the election of its officials as null and void. The Decision likewise declared as null and void the provision
on 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.11

The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Dinagat filed their respective motions for
reconsideration of the Decision. In its Resolution12 dated May 12, 2010,13 the Court denied the said motions.14

Unperturbed, the Republic and Dinagat both filed their respective motions for leave of court to admit their second
motions for reconsideration, accompanied by their second motions for reconsideration. These motions were
eventually "noted without action" by this Court in its June 29, 2010 Resolution.15

Meanwhile, the movants-intervenors filed on June 18, 2010 a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit
Intervenors’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010. They alleged that the COMELEC
issued Resolution No. 8790, relevant to this case, which provides—

RESOLUTION NO. 8790

WHEREAS, Dinagat Islands, consisting of seven (7) municipalities, were previously components of the
First Legislative District of the Province of Surigao del Norte. In December 2006 pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9355, the Province of Dinagat Island[s] was created and its creation was ratified on 02
December 2006 in the Plebiscite for this purpose;

WHEREAS, as a province, Dinagat Islands was, for purposes of the May 10, 2010 National and Local
Elections, allocated one (1) seat for Governor, one (1) seat for Vice Governor, one (1) for congressional
seat, and ten (10) Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats pursuant to Resolution No. 8670 dated 16
September 2009;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 180050 entitled "Rodolfo Navarro, et al., vs. Executive
Secretary Eduardo Ermita, as representative of the President of the Philippines, et al." rendered a
Decision, dated 10 February 2010, declaring Republic Act No. 9355 unconstitutional for failure to
comply with the criteria for the creation of a province prescribed in Sec. 461 of the Local Government
Code in relation to Sec. 10, Art. X, of the 1987 Constitution;

WHEREAS, respondents intend to file Motion[s] for Reconsideration on the above decision of the
Supreme Court;

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 2/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

WHEREAS, the electoral data relative to the: (1) position for Member, House of Representatives
representing the lone congressional district of Dinagat Islands, (2) names of the candidates for the
aforementioned position, (3) position for Governor, Dinagat Islands, (4) names of the candidates for the
said position, (5) position of the Vice Governor, (6) the names of the candidates for the said position, (7)
positions for the ten (10) Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members and, [8] all the names of the candidates
for Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members, have already been configured into the system and can no
longer be revised within the remaining period before the elections on May 10, 2010.

NOW, THEREFORE, with the current system configuration, and depending on whether the Decision of
the Supreme Court in Navarro vs. Ermita is reconsidered or not, the Commission RESOLVED, as it
hereby RESOLVES, to declare that:

a. If the Decision is reversed, there will be no problem since the current system configuration is in
line with the reconsidered Decision, meaning that the Province of Dinagat Islands and the
Province of Surigao del Norte remain as two (2) separate provinces;

b. If the Decision becomes final and executory before the election, the Province of Dinagat
Islands will revert to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District, Surigao del Norte.

But because of the current system configuration, the ballots for the Province of Dinagat Islands
will, for the positions of Member, House of Representatives, Governor, Vice Governor and
Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, bear only the names of the candidates for the said
positions.

Conversely, the ballots for the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte, will, for the position of
Governor, Vice Governor, Member, House of Representatives, First District of Surigao del Norte
and Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, show only candidates for the said position. Likewise,
the whole Province of Surigao del Norte, will, for the position of Governor and Vice Governor,
bear only the names of the candidates for the said position[s].

Consequently, the voters of the Province of Dinagat Islands will not be able to vote for the
candidates of Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and Member, House [of] Representatives,
First Legislative District, Surigao del Norte, and candidates for Governor and Vice Governor for
Surigao del Norte. Meanwhile, voters of the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte, will not
be able to vote for Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Member, House of
Representatives, Dinagat Islands. Also, the voters of the whole Province of Surigao del Norte, will
not be able to vote for the Governor and Vice Governor, Dinagat Islands. Given this situation, the
Commission will postpone the elections for Governor, Vice Governor, Member, House of
Representatives, First Legislative District, Surigao del Norte, and Members, Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, First Legislative District, Surigao del Norte, because the election will result in [a]
failure to elect, since, in actuality, there are no candidates for Governor, Vice Governor, Members,
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, First Legislative District, and Member, House of Representatives,
First Legislative District (with Dinagat Islands) of Surigao del Norte.

c. 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.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.

They further alleged that, because they are the duly elected officials of Surigao del Norte whose positions will be
affected by the nullification of the election results in the event that the May 12, 2010 Resolution is not reversed, they
have a legal interest in the instant case and would be directly affected by the declaration of nullity of R.A. No. 9355.
Simply put, 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. Moreover, as residents of
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 3/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

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: (1) the whole administrative set-up of the province will have
to be restructured; (2) the services of many employees will have to be terminated; (3) contracts will have to be
invalidated; and (4) projects and other developments will have to be discontinued. In addition, they claim that their
rights cannot be adequately pursued and protected in any other proceeding since their rights would be foreclosed if
the May 12, 2010 Resolution would attain finality.

In their motion for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution, movants-intervenors raised three (3) main
arguments to challenge the above Resolution, namely: (1) that the passage of R.A. No. 9355 operates as an act of
Congress amending Section 461 of the LGC; (2) 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 (3) that the Operative Fact Doctrine is applicable in the instant case.

In the Resolution dated July 20, 2010,16 the Court denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit
Intervenors’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010 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.

On September 7, 2010, movants-intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution,
citing several rulings17 of the Court, allowing intervention as an exception to Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court
that it should be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment. They alleged that, prior to the May 10, 2010
elections, their legal interest in this case was not yet existent. They averred that prior to the May 10, 2010 elections,
they were unaware of the proceedings in this case. Even for the sake of argument that they had notice of the
pendency of the case, they pointed out that prior to the said elections, Sol T. Matugas was a simple resident of
Surigao del Norte, Arturo Carlos A. Egay, Jr. was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Second District
of Surigao del Norte, and Mamerto D. Galanida was the Municipal Mayor of Socorro, Surigao del Norte, and that,
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8790, it was only after they were elected as Governor of Surigao del Norte,
Vice Governor of Surigao del Norte and Sangguniang Panlalawigan Member of the First District of Surigao del Norte,
respectively, that they became possessed with legal interest in this controversy.

On October 5, 2010, the Court issued an order for Entry of Judgment, stating that the decision in this case had
become final and executory on May 18, 2010. Hence, the above motion.

At the outset, it must be clarified that this Resolution delves solely on the instant Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of
Judgment of movants-intervenors, not on the second motions for reconsideration of the original parties, and neither
on Dinagat’s Urgent Omnibus Motion, which our

esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Arturo D. Brion considers as Dinagat’s third motion for reconsideration. Inasmuch
as the motions for leave to admit their respective motions for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution and the
aforesaid motions for reconsideration were already noted without action by the Court, there is no reason to treat
Dinagat’s Urgent Omnibus Motion differently. In relation to this, the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment of
movants-intervenors could not be considered as a second motion for reconsideration to warrant the application of
Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.18 It should be noted that this motion prays for the
recall of the entry of judgment and for the resolution of their motion for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010
Resolution which remained unresolved. The denial of their motion for leave to intervene and to admit motion for
reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution did not rule on the merits of the motion for reconsideration of the
May 12, 2010 Resolution, but only on the timeliness of the intended intervention. Their motion for reconsideration of
this denial elaborated on movants-intervenors’ interest in this case which existed only after judgment had been
rendered. As such, their motion for intervention and their motion for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution
merely stand as an initial reconsideration of the said resolution.

With due deference to Mr. Justice Brion, there appears nothing in the records to support the claim that this was a
ploy of respondents’ legal tactician to reopen the case despite an entry of judgment. To be sure, it is actually
COMELEC Resolution No. 8790 that set this controversy into motion anew. To reiterate, the pertinent portion of the
Resolution reads:

c. 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,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 4/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, COMELEC Resolution No. 8790 spawned the peculiar circumstance of proper party interest for movants-
intervenors only with the specter of the decision in the main case becoming final and executory. More importantly, if
the intervention be not entertained, the movants-intervenors would be left with no other remedy as regards to the
impending nullification of their election to their respective positions. Thus, to the Court’s mind, there is an imperative
to grant the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment by movants-intervenors.

It should be remembered that this case was initiated upon the filing of the petition for certiorari way back on October
30, 2007. At that time, movants-intervenors had nothing at stake in the outcome of this case. While it may be argued
that their interest in this case should have commenced upon the issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 8790, it is
obvious that their interest in this case then was more imaginary than real. This is because COMELEC Resolution No.
8790 provides that should the decision in this case attain finality prior to the May 10, 2010 elections, the election of
the local government officials stated therein would only have to be postponed. Given such a scenario, movants-
intervenors would not have suffered any injury or adverse effect with respect to the reversion of Dinagat as part of
Surigao del Norte since they would simply have remained candidates for the respective positions they have vied for
and to which they have been elected.

For a party to have locus standi, one must allege "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Because constitutional cases are often public actions in
which the relief sought is likely to affect other persons, a preliminary question frequently arises as to this interest in
the constitutional question raised.19

It cannot be denied that movants-intervenors will suffer direct injury in the event their Urgent Motion to Recall Entry
of Judgment dated October 29, 2010 is denied and their Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit
Intervenors’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010 is denied with finality. Indeed, they
have sufficiently shown that they have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that if the May 12, 2010
Resolution be not reconsidered, their election to their respective positions during the May 10, 2010 polls and its
concomitant effects would all be nullified and be put to naught. Given their unique circumstances, movants-
intervenors should not be left without any remedy before this Court simply because their interest in this case became
manifest only after the case had already been decided. The consequences of such a decision would definitely work
to their disadvantage, nay, to their utmost prejudice, without even them being parties to the dispute. Such decision
would also violate their right to due process, a right that cries out for protection. Thus, it is imperative that the
movants-intervenors be heard on the merits of their cause. We are not only a court of law, but also of justice and
equity, such that our position and the dire repercussions of this controversy should be weighed on the scales of
justice, rather than dismissed on account of mootness.

The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from
resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3)
the constitutional issue raised requires formation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;
and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.20 The second exception attends this case.

This Court had taken a liberal attitude in the case of David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,21 where technicalities of procedure
on locus standi were brushed aside, because the constitutional issues raised were of paramount public interest or of
transcendental importance deserving the attention of the Court. Along parallel lines, the motion for intervention
should be given due course since movants-intervenors have shown their substantial legal interest in the outcome of
this case, even much more than petitioners themselves, and because of the novelty, gravity, and weight of the issues
involved.

Undeniably, the motion for intervention and the motion for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 Resolution of
movants-intervenors is akin to the right to appeal the judgment of a case, which, though merely a statutory right that
must comply with the requirements of the rules, is an essential part of our judicial system, such that courts should
proceed with caution not to deprive a party of the right to question the judgment and its effects, and ensure that
every party-litigant, including those who would be directly affected, would have the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just disposition of their cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.22

Verily, the Court had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall entries of judgment in light of attendant
extraordinary circumstances.23 The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 5/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared final.24 In this case, the compelling
concern is not only to afford the movants-intervenors the right to be heard since they would be adversely affected by
the judgment in this case despite not being original parties thereto, but also to arrive at the correct interpretation of
the provisions of the LGC with respect to the creation of local government units. In this manner, the thrust of the
Constitution with respect to local autonomy and of the LGC with respect to decentralization and the attainment of
national goals, as hereafter elucidated, will effectively be realized.

On the merits of the motion for intervention, after taking a long and intent look, the Court finds that the first and
second arguments raised by movants-intervenors deserve affirmative consideration.

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. In this light,
Congress, in its collective wisdom, has debated on the relative weight of each of these three criteria, placing
emphasis on which of them should enjoy preferential consideration.

Without doubt, the primordial criterion in the creation of local government units, particularly of a province, is
economic viability. This is the clear intent of the framers of the LGC. In this connection, the following excerpts from
congressional debates are quoted hereunder—

HON. ALFELOR. Income is mandatory. We can even have this doubled because we thought…

CHAIRMAN CUENCO. In other words, the primordial consideration here is the economic viability of the new local
government unit, the new province?

xxxx

HON. LAGUDA. The reason why we are willing to increase the income, double than the House version, because we
also believe that economic viability is really a minimum. Land area and population are functions really of the viability
of the area, because you have an income level which would be the trigger point for economic development,
population will naturally increase because there will be an immigration. However, if you disallow the particular area
from being converted into a province because of the population problems in the beginning, it will never be able to
reach the point where it could become a province simply because it will never have the economic take off for it to
trigger off that economic development.

Now, we’re saying that maybe Fourteen Million Pesos is a floor area where it could pay for overhead and provide a
minimum of basic services to the population. Over and above that, the provincial officials should be able to trigger off
economic development which will attract immigration, which will attract new investments from the private sector. This
is now the concern of the local officials. But if we are going to tie the hands of the proponents, simply by telling them,
"Sorry, you are now at 150 thousand or 200 thousand," you will never be able to become a province because nobody
wants to go to your place. Why? Because you never have any reason for economic viability.

xxxx

CHAIRMAN PIMENTEL. Okay, what about land area?

HON. LUMAUIG. 1,500 square kilometers

HON. ANGARA. Walang problema ‘yon, in fact that’s not very critical, ‘yong land area because…

CHAIRMAN PIMENTEL. Okay, ya, our, the Senate version is 3.5, 3,500 square meters, ah, square kilometers.

HON. LAGUDA. Ne, Ne. A province is constituted for the purpose of administrative efficiency and delivery of basic
services.

CHAIRMAN PIMENTEL. Right.

HON. LAGUDA. Actually, when you come down to it, when government was instituted, there is only one central
government and then everybody falls under that. But it was later on subdivided into provinces for purposes of
administrative efficiency.

CHAIRMAN PIMENTEL. Okay.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 6/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

HON. LAGUDA. Now, what we’re seeing now is that the administrative efficiency is no longer there precisely
because the land areas that we are giving to our governors is so wide that no one man can possibly administer all of
the complex machineries that are needed.

Secondly, when you say "delivery of basic services," as pointed out by Cong. Alfelor, there are sections of the
province which have never been visited by public officials, precisely because they don’t have the time nor the energy
anymore to do that because it’s so wide. Now, by compressing the land area and by reducing the population
requirement, we are, in effect, trying to follow the basic policy of why we are creating provinces, which is to deliver
basic services and to make it more efficient in administration.

CHAIRMAN PIMENTEL. Yeah, that’s correct, but on the assumption that the province is able to do it without being a
burden to the national government. That’s the assumption.

HON. LAGUDA. That’s why we’re going into the minimum income level. As we said, if we go on a minimum income
level, then we say, "this is the trigger point at which this administration can take place."25

Also worthy of note are the requisites in the creation of a barangay, a municipality, a city, and a province as provided
both in the LGC and the LGC-IRR, viz.—

For a Barangay:

LGC: SEC. 386. Requisites for Creation. – (a) A barangay may be created out of a contiguous territory
which has a population of at least two thousand (2,000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics
Office except in cities and municipalities within Metro Manila and other metropolitan political
subdivisions or in highly urbanized cities where such territory shall have a certified population of at least
five thousand (5,000) inhabitants: Provided, That the creation thereof shall not reduce the population of
the original barangay or barangays to less than the minimum requirement prescribed herein.

To enhance the delivery of basic services in the indigenous cultural communities, barangays may
be created in such communities by an Act of Congress, notwithstanding the above requirement.

(b) The territorial jurisdiction of the new barangay shall be properly identified by metes and
bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. The territory need not be contiguous if
it comprises two (2) or more islands.

(c) The governor or city mayor may prepare a consolidation plan for barangays, based on the
criteria prescribed in this Section, within his territorial jurisdiction. The plan shall be submitted to
the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned for appropriate action. In
the case of municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila area and other metropolitan political
subdivisions, the barangay consolidation plan can be prepared and approved by the sangguniang
bayan concerned.

LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 14. Barangays. – (a) Creation of barangays by the sangguniang panlalawigan shall
require prior recommendation of the sangguniang bayan.

(b) New barangays in the municipalities within MMA shall be created only by Act of Congress,
subject to the limitations and requirements prescribed in this Article.

(c) Notwithstanding the population requirement, a barangay may be created in the indigenous
cultural communities by Act of Congress upon recommendation of the LGU or LGUs where the
cultural community is located.

(d) A barangay shall not be created unless the following requisites are present:

(1) Population – which shall not be less than two thousand (2,000) inhabitants, except in
municipalities and cities within MMA and other metropolitan political subdivisions as may
be created by law, or in highly-urbanized cities where such territory shall have a population
of at least five thousand (5,000) inhabitants, as certified by the NSO. The creation of a
barangay shall not reduce the population of the original barangay or barangays to less
than the prescribed minimum/

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 7/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

(2) Land Area – which must be contiguous, unless comprised by two (2) or more islands.
The territorial jurisdiction of a barangay sought to be created shall be properly identified by
metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries.

Municipality:

LGC: SEC. 442. Requisites for Creation. – (a) A municipality may be created if it has an average annual
income, as certified by the provincial treasurer, or at least Two million five hundred thousand pesos
(P2,500,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive years based on the 1991 constant prices; a population
of at least twenty-five thousand (25,000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office; and a
contiguous territory of at least fifty (50) square kilometers as certified by the Lands

Management Bureau: Provided, That the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area,
population or income of the original municipality or municipalities at the time of said creation to
less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.

(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created municipality shall be properly identified by metes
and bounds. The requirement on land area shall not apply where the municipality proposed to be
created is composed of one (1) or more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it
comprises two (2) or more islands.

(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund of the
municipality concerned, exclusive of special funds, transfers and non-recurring income.

(d) Municipalities existing as of the date of effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and
operate as such. Existing municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or
executive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office
at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered regular municipalities.

LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 13. Municipalities. – (a) Requisites for Creation – A municipality shall not be
created unless the following requisites are present:

(i) Income – An average annual income of not less than Two Million Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (₱2,500,000.00), for the immediately preceding two (2) consecutive years based on 1991
constant prices, as certified by the provincial treasurer. The average annual income shall include
the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, special accounts, transfers,
and nonrecurring income;

(ii) Population – which shall not be less than twenty five thousand (25,000) inhabitants, as
certified by NSO; and

(iii) Land area – which must be contiguous with an area of at least fifty (50) square kilometers, as
certified by LMB. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands. The
requirement on land area shall not apply where the proposed municipality is composed of one (1)
or more islands. The territorial jurisdiction of a municipality sought to be created shall be properly
identified by metes and bounds.

The creation of a new municipality shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the
original LGU or LGUs at the time of said creation to less than the prescribed minimum
requirements. All expenses incidental to the creation shall be borne by the petitioners.

City:

LGC: SEC. 450. Requisites for Creation. – (a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
converted into a component city if it has an average annual income, as certified by the Department of
Finance, of at least Twenty million pesos (₱20,000,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive years based
on 1991 constant prices, and if it has either of the following requisities:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers, as certified by the
Lands Management Bureau; or,

(ii) a population of not less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) inhabitants, as
certified by the National Statistics Office: Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 8/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

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 territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall be properly identified by metes and
bounds. The requirement on land area shall not apply where the city proposed to be created is
composed of one (1) or more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2)
or more islands.

(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive
of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.

LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 11. Cities. – (a) Requisites for creation – A city shall not be created unless the
following requisites on income and either population or land area are present:

(1) Income – An average annual income of not less than Twenty Million Pesos (₱20,000,000.00),
for the immediately preceding two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices, as
certified by DOF. The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general
fund, exclusive of special funds, special accounts, transfers, and nonrecurring income; and

(2) Population or land area – Population which shall not be less than one hundred fifty thousand
(150,000) inhabitants, as certified by the NSO; or land area which must be contiguous with an
area of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers, as certified by LMB. 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. The land area requirement shall not apply
where the proposed city is composed of one (1) or more islands. The territorial jurisdiction of a
city sought to be created shall be properly identified by metes and bounds.

The creation of a new city shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the original LGU or
LGUs at the time of said creation to less than the prescribed minimum requirements. All expenses
incidental to the creation shall be borne by the petitioners.

Provinces:

LGC: SEC. 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
(₱20,000,000.00) based on 1991 prices and either of the following requisites:

(i) a contiguous 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.

LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 9. Provinces. – (a) Requisites for creation – A province shall not be created unless
the following requisites on income and either population or land area are present:

(1) Income – An average annual income of not less than Twenty Million pesos (₱20,000,000.00)
for the immediately preceding two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices, as
certified by DOF. The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general
fund, exclusive of special funds, special accounts, transfers, and non-recurring income; and

(2) Population or land area – Population which shall not be less than two hundred fifty thousand
(250,000) inhabitants, as certified by NSO; or land area which must be contiguous with an area of
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 9/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by LMB. 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. The land area requirement shall not apply
where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands. The territorial jurisdiction of
a province sought to be created shall be properly identified by metes and bounds.

The creation of a new province shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the original LGU or LGUs
at the time of said creation to less than the prescribed minimum requirements. All expenses incidental to the creation
shall be borne by the petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)

It bears scrupulous notice that from the above cited provisions, with respect to the creation of barangays, land area
is not a requisite indicator of viability. However, with respect to the creation of municipalities, component cities, and
provinces, the three (3) indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, i.e., income, population, and
land area, are provided for.

But 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.

There appears neither rhyme nor reason why this exemption should apply to cities and municipalities, but not to
provinces. In fact, considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood
that islands or group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly-created province than in most cities or
municipalities. It is, therefore, logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision 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.

This interpretation finds merit when we consider the basic policy considerations underpinning the principle of local
autonomy.

Section 2 of the LGC, of which paragraph (a) is pertinent to this case, provides—

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political
subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority,
responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the
local government units.

This declaration of policy is echoed in Article 3(a) of the LGC-IRR26 and in the Whereas clauses of Administrative
Order No. 270,27 which read—

WHEREAS, Section 25, Article II of the Constitution mandates that the State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments;

WHEREAS, pursuant to this declared policy, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991, affirms, among others, that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine
and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals;

WHEREAS, Section 533 of the Local Government Code of 1991 requires the President to convene an Oversight
Committee for the purpose of formulating and issuing the appropriate rules and regulations necessary for the
efficient and effective implementation of all the provisions of the said Code; and

WHEREAS, the Oversight Committee, after due deliberations and consultations with all the concerned sectors of
society and consideration of the operative principles of local autonomy as provided in the Local Government Code of
1991, has completed the formulation of the implementing rules and regulations; x x x

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 10/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

Consistent with the declared policy to provide local government units genuine and meaningful local autonomy,
contiguity and minimum land area requirements for prospective local government units should be liberally construed
in order to achieve the desired results. The strict interpretation adopted by the February 10, 2010 Decision could
prove to be counter-productive, if not outright absurd, awkward, and impractical. Picture an intended province that
consists of several municipalities and component cities which, in themselves, also consist of islands. 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.

Moreover, such 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. Hence, the land area requirement
should be read together with territorial contiguity.

Another look at the transcript of the deliberations of Congress should prove enlightening:

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Can we give time to Congressman Chiongbian,28 with respect to his…

CHAIRMAN LINA. Okay.

HON. CHIONGBIAN. At the outset, Chairman Lina, we would like to apprise the distinguished Senator about the
action taken by the House, on House Bill No. 7166. This was passed about two years ago and has been pending in
the Senate for consideration. This is a bill that I am not the only one involved, including our distinguished Chairman
here. But then we did want to sponsor the bill, being the Chairman then of the Local Government.

So, I took the cudgels for the rest of the Congressmen, who were more or less interested in the creation of the new
provinces, because of the vastness of the areas that were involved.

At any rate, this bill was passed by the House unanimously without any objection. And as I have said a while ago,
that this has been pending in the Senate for the last two years. And Sen. Pimentel himself was just in South
Cotabato and he delivered a speech that he will support this bill, and he says, that he will incorporate this in the
Local Government Code, which I have in writing from him. I showed you the letter that he wrote, and naturally, we in
the House got hold of the Senate version. It becomes an impossibility for the whole Philippines to create a new
province, and that is quite the concern of the respective Congressmen.

Now, insofar as the constitutional provision is concerned, there is nothing to stop the mother province from voting
against the bill, if a province is going to be created.

So, we are talking about devolution of powers here. Why is the province not willing to create another province, when
it can be justified. Even Speaker Mitra says, what will happen to Palawan? We won’t have one million people there,
and if you look at Palawan, there will be about three or four provinces that will comprise that island. So, the
development will be hampered.

Now, I would like to read into the record the letter of Sen. Pimentel, dated November 2, 1989. This was practically
about a year after 7166 was approved by the House, House Bill 7166.

On November 2, 1989, the Senator wrote me:

"Dear Congressman Chiongbian:

We are in receipt of your letter of 17 October. Please be informed that your House No. 7166 was
incorporated in the proposed Local Government Code, Senate Bill No. 155, which is pending for second
reading.

Thank you and warm regards.

Very truly yours,"

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 11/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

That is the very context of the letter of the Senator, and we are quite surprised that the Senate has adopted another
position.

So, we would like – because this is a unanimously approved bill in the House, that’s the only bill that is involving the
present Local Government Code that we are practically considering; and this will be a slap on the House, if we do
not approve it, as approved by the lower House. This can be [an] irritant in the approval of the Conference
Committee Report. And I just want to manifest that insofar as the creation of the province, not only in my province,
but the other provinces. That the mother province will participate in the plebiscite, they can defeat the province, let’s
say, on the basis of the result, the province cannot be created if they lose in the plebiscite, and I don’t see why, we
should put this stringent conditions to the private people of the devolution that they are seeking.

So, Mr. Senator, I think we should consider the situation seriously, because, this is an approved version of the
House, and I will not be the one to raise up and question the Conference Committee Report, but the rest of the
House that are interested in this bill. And they have been approaching the Speaker about this. So, the Speaker
reminded me to make sure that it takes the cudgel of the House approved version.

So, that’s all what I can say, Mr. Senator, and I don’t believe that it is not, because it’s the wish of the House, but
because the mother province will participate anyhow, you vote them down; and that is provided for in the
Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have seen the amendment with regards to the creation of the city to be urbanized,
subject to the plebiscite. And why should we not allow that to happen in the provinces! In other words, we don’t want
the people who wants to create a new province, as if they are left in the devolution of powers, when they feel that
they are far away from civilization.

Now, I am not talking about other provinces, because I am unaware, not aware of their situation. But the province of
South Cotabato has a very unique geographical territorial conglomerations. One side is in the other side of the Bay,
of Sarangani Bay. The capital town is in the North; while these other municipalities are in the East and in the West.
And if they have to travel from the last town in the eastern part of the province, it is about one hundred forty
kilometers to the capital town. And from the West side, it is the same distance. And from the North side, it is about
one hundred kilometers. So that is the problem there. And besides, they have enough resources and I feel that, not
because I am interested in the province, I am after their welfare in the future. Who am I to dictate on those people? I
have no interest but then I am looking at the future development of these areas.

As a matter of fact, if I am in politics, it’s incidental; I do not need to be there, but I can foresee what the creation of a
new province will bring to these people. It will bring them prosperity; it will bring them more income, and it will
encourage even foreign investors. Like the PAP now, they are concentrating in South Cotabato, especially in the City
of

General Santos and the neighboring municipalities, and they are quite interested and even the AID people are
asking me, "What is holding the creation of a new province when practically you need it?" It’s not 20 or 30 kilometers
from the capital town; it’s about 140 kilometers. And imagine those people have to travel that far and our road is not
like Metropolitan Manila. That is as far as from here to Tarlac. And there are municipalities there that are just one
municipality is bigger than the province of La Union. They have the income. Of course, they don’t have the
population because that’s a part of the land of promise and people from Luzon are migrating everyday because they
feel that there are more opportunities here.

So, by creating the new provinces, not only in my case, in the other cases, it will enhance the development of the
Philippines, not because I am interested in my province. Well, as far as I am concerned, you know, I am in the
twilight years of my life to serve and I would like to serve my people well. No personal or political interest here. I hope
the distinguished Chairman of the Committee will appreciate the House Bill 7166, which the House has already
approved because we don’t want them to throw the Conference Committee Report after we have worked that the
house Bill has been, you know, drawn over board and not even considered by the Senate. And on top of that, we are
considering a bill that has not yet been passed. So I hope the Senator will take that into account.

Thank you for giving me this time to explain.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Thank you very much, Congressman James. We will look into the legislative history of the Senate
version on this matter of creation of provinces. I am sure there was an amendment. As I said, I’ll look into it. Maybe
the House version was incorporated in toto, but maybe during the discussion, their amendments were introduced
and, therefore, Senator Pimentel could not hold on to the original version and as a result new criteria were
introduced.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 12/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

But because of the manifestation that you just made, we will definitely, when we reach a book, Title IV, on the matter
of provinces, we will look at it sympathetically from your end so that the objective that you want [to] achieve can be
realized. So we will look at it with sympathy. We will review our position on the matter, how we arrived at the Senate
version and we will adopt an open mind definitely when we come into it.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Kanino ‘yan?

CHAIRMAN LINA. Book III.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Title?

CHAIRMAN LINA. Title IV.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. I have been pondering on the case of James, especially on economic stimulation of a certain
area. Like our case, because I put myself on our province, our province is quite very big. It’s composed of four (4)
congressional districts and I feel it should be five now. But during the Batasan time, four of us talked and conversed
proposing to divide the province into two.

There are areas then, when since time immemorial, very few governors ever tread on those areas. That is, maybe
you’re acquainted with the Bondoc Peninsula of Quezon, fronting that is Ragay Gulf. From Ragay there is a long
stretch of coastal area. From Albay going to Ragay, very few governors ever tread [there] before, even today. That
area now is infested with NPA. That is the area of Congressman Andaya.

Now, we thought that in order to stimulate growth, maybe provincial aid can be extended to these areas. With a big
or a large area of a province, a certain administrator or provincial governor definitely will have no sufficient time. For
me, if we really would like to stimulate growth, I believe that an area where there is physical or geographical
impossibilities, where administrators can penetrate, I think we have to create certain provisions in the law where
maybe we can treat it with special considerations.

Now, we went over the graduate scale of the Philipppine Local Government Data as far as provinces are concerned.
It is very surprising that there are provinces here which only composed of six municipalities, eight municipalities,
seven municipalities. Like in Cagayan, Tuguegarao, there are six municipalities. Ah, excuse me, Batanes.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Will you look at the case of --- how many municipalities are there in Batanes province?

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Batanes is only six.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Six town. Siquijor?

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Siquijor. It is region?

CHAIRMAN LINA. Seven.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR.L Seven. Anim.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Six also.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Six also.

CHAIRMAN LINA. It seems with a minimum number of towns?

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. The population of Siquijor is only 70 thousand, not even one congressional district. But
tumaas in 1982. Camiguin, that is Region 9. Wala dito. Nagtataka nga ako ngayon.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Camiguin, Camiguin.

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. That is region? Camiguin has five municipalities, with a population of 63 thousand. But we
do not hold it against the province because maybe that’s one stimulant where growth can grow, can start. The land
area for Camiguin is only 229 square kilometers. So if we hard fast on requirements of, we set a minimum for every
province, palagay ko we just leave it to legislation, eh. Anyway, the Constitution is very clear that in case we would
like to divide, we submit it to a plebiscite. Pabayaan natin ang tao. Kung maglalagay tayo ng set ng minimum, tila
yata mahihirapan tayo, eh. Because what is really the thrust of the Local Government Code? Growth. To devolve
powers in order for the community to have its own idea how they will stimulate growth in their respective areas.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 13/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

So, in every geographical condition, mayroon sariling id[i]osyncracies eh, we cannot make a generalization.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Will the creation of a province, carved out of the existing province because of some geographical
id[i]osyncracies, as you called it, stimulate the economic growth in the area or will substantial aid coming from the
national government to a particular area, say, to a municipality, achieve the same purpose?

CHAIRMAN ALFELOR. Ano tayo dito sa budget. All right, here is a province. Usually, tinitingnan lang yun, provision
eh, hindi na yung composition eh. You are entitled to, say, 20% of the area.

There’s a province of Camarines Sur which have the same share with that of Camiguin and Siquijor, but Camiguin is
composed only of five municipalities; in Siquijor, it’s composed of six, but the share of Siquijor is the same share with
that of the province of Camarines Sur, having a bigger area, very much bigger.

That is the budget in process.

CHAIRMAN LINA. Well, as I said, we are going to consider this very seriously and even with sympathy because of
the explanation given and we will study this very carefully.29

The matters raised during the said Bicameral Conference Committee meeting clearly show the manifest intention of
Congress to promote development in the previously underdeveloped and uninhabited land areas by allowing them to
directly share in the allocation of funds under the national budget. It should be remembered that, under Sections 284
and 285

of the LGC, the IRA is given back to local governments, and the sharing is based on land area, population, and local
revenue.30

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,31 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.

It is well to remember that the LGC-IRR was formulated by the Oversight Committee consisting of members of both
the Executive and Legislative departments, pursuant to Section 53332 of the LGC. As Section 533 provides, the
Oversight Committee shall formulate and issue 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. It was also mandated by the Constitution that a local government
code shall be enacted by Congress, to wit—

Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of
recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities,
and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and
functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local
units. (Emphasis supplied.)

These State policies are the very reason for the enactment of the LGC, with the view to attain decentralization and
countryside development. Congress saw that the old LGC, Batas Pambansa Bilang 337, had to be replaced with a
new law, now the LGC of 1991, which is more dynamic and cognizant of the needs of the Philippines as an
archipelagic country. This accounts for the exemption from the land area requirement of local government units
composed of one or more islands, as expressly stated under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC, with respect to the
creation of municipalities and cities, but inadvertently omitted from Section 461 with respect to the creation of
provinces. Hence, the void or missing detail was filled in by the Oversight Committee in the LGC-IRR.

With three (3) members each from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, particularly the chairpersons
of their respective Committees on Local Government, it cannot be gainsaid that the inclusion by the Oversight
Committee of the exemption from the land area requirement with respect to the creation of provinces consisting of
one (1) or more islands was intended by Congress, but unfortunately not expressly stated in Section 461 of the LGC,
and this intent was echoed through an express provision in the LGC-IRR. To be sure, the Oversight Committee did
not just arbitrarily and whimsically insert such an exemption in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR. The Oversight Committee
evidently conducted due deliberation and consultations with all the concerned sectors of society and considered the

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 14/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

operative principles of local autonomy as provided in the LGC when the IRR was formulated.33 Undoubtedly, this
amounts not only to an executive construction, entitled to great weight and respect from this Court,34 but to
legislative construction as well, especially with the inclusion of representatives from the four leagues of local
government units as members of the Oversight Committee.

With the formulation of the LGC-IRR, which amounted to both executive and legislative construction of the LGC, the
many details to implement the LGC had already been put in place, which Congress understood to be impractical and
not too urgent to immediately translate into direct amendments to the LGC. But Congress, recognizing the capacity
and viability of Dinagat to become a full-fledged province, enacted R.A. No. 9355, following the exemption from the
land area requirement, which, with respect to the creation of provinces, can only be found as an express provision in
the LGC-IRR. In effect, pursuant to its plenary legislative powers, Congress breathed flesh and blood into that
exemption in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR and transformed it into law when it enacted R.A. No. 9355 creating the
Island Province of Dinagat.

Further, the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 9355 was filed and favorably voted upon in both Chambers of
Congress. Such acts of both Chambers of Congress definitively show the clear legislative intent to incorporate into
the LGC that exemption from the land area requirement, with respect to the creation of a province when it consists of
one or more islands, as expressly provided only in the LGC-IRR. Thereby, and by necessity, the LGC was amended
by way of the enactment of R.A. No. 9355.

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 ₱82,696,433.23
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 ₱20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province. The delivery of basic services to its
constituents has been proven possible and sustainable. 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 Dinagat’s existence as
a province, they must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province. This
Court should not be instrumental in stunting such capacity. As we have held in League of Cities of the Philippines v.
Commission on Elections35 —

Ratio legis est anima. The spirit rather than the letter of the law. A statute must be read according to its spirit or
intent, for what is within the spirit is within the statute although it is not within its letter, and that which is within the
letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Put a bit differently, that which is within the intent of the
lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter, and that which is within the letter of the statute is not
within the statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers. Withal, courts ought not to interpret and should not
accept an interpretation that would defeat the intent of the law and its legislators.

So as it is exhorted to pass on a challenge against the validity of an act of Congress, a co-equal branch of
government, it behooves the Court to have at once one principle in mind: the presumption of constitutionality of
statutes. This presumption finds its roots in the tri-partite system of government and the corollary separation of
powers, which enjoins the three great departments of the government to accord a becoming courtesy for each
other’s acts, and not to interfere inordinately with the exercise by one of its official functions. Towards this end, courts
ought to reject assaults against the validity of statutes, barring of course their clear unconstitutionality. To doubt is to
sustain, the theory in context being that the law is the product of earnest studies by Congress to ensure that no
constitutional prescription or concept is infringed. Consequently, before a law duly challenged is nullified, an
unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with, the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one, must be
demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court.

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,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 15/16
9/12/2019 G.R. No. 180050

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.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_180050_2011.html 16/16