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

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 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, 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 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.

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/

(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 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,"

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.

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.

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 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 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, 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.