Republic of the 

Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
 

EN BANC

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F.   G.R. No. 180050

BERNAL, and  
 
RENE O. MEDINA,  
Present:
Petitioners,
CORONA, C.J.,
  CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
  LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO PERALTA,
ERMITA, representing the BERSAMIN,
President of the Philippines; Senate DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
of the Philippines, represented by
VILLARAMA, JR.,
the SENATE PRESIDENT; House of PEREZ,
Representatives, represented by MENDOZA, and
the HOUSE SPEAKER; GOVERNOR SERENO, JJ.
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.
 
 
Promulgated:

April 12, 2011

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
 

RESOLUTION
 

NACHURA, J.:
 

For consideration of the Court is the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of

Judgment dated October 20, 2010 filed by Movant-Intervenors[1] 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).[3] The plebiscite yielded 69,943 affirmative votes
and 63,502 negative votes.[4] With the approval of thepeople 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

[8]
the Province of Surigao del Norte, filed another petition for certiorari  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

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.)

On February 10, 2010, the Court rendered its Decision[9] 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
Resolution[12] 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;

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 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 rulings[17] 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 onDinagats Urgent Omnibus Motion, which our

esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Arturo D. Brion considers as Dinagats 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 Dinagats 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,
House of Representatives, First Legislative District of Surigao del
Norte, and Members, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, First District,
Surigao del Norte (with DinagatIslands) 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 Courts 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 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, were 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 thats 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.

HON. LAGUDA. Now, what were 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 dont have the time
nor the energy anymore to do that because its 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, thats correct, but on the assumption that
the province is able to do it without being a burden to the national
government. Thats the assumption.

HON. LAGUDA. Thats why were 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/

(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 (P2,500,000.00), 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 (P20,000,000.00) 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 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 (P20,000,000.00), 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 (P20,000,000.00) 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 (P20,000,000.00) 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 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-IRR [26] 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

 
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 wont 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,

 
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, thats 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, lets say, on the basis of the result, the province cannot be
created if they lose in the plebiscite, and I dont 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, thats all what I can say, Mr. Senator, and I dont believe that it is not,
because its 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 dont 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, its 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? Its not 20 or
30 kilometers from the capital town; its 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 dont
have the population because thats 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 dont 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, Ill
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.

 
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. Its
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 youre 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 thats 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.

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.

Theres 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, its 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 todirectly 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 533[32] 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 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 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. 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 Dinagats 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 Elections[35]
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 others 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, 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.

  

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.