3-G.R. No. 180050. April 12, 2011 (Case Brief - Digest)

G.R. No. 180050.
April 12, 2011 (Case Brief / Digest)
Title: Navarro v. Ermita: A Detailed Examination of the Constitutionality of the Creation of

Dinagat Islands Province
Facts:
On October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355,
creating the province of Dinagat Islands from Surigao del Norte. Following this, the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) conducted a plebiscite on December 3, 2006, leading
to the ratification of Dinagat’s creation, affirmed by 69,943 affirmative votes against 63,502
negative votes. The interim officials of Dinagat took office on January 26, 2007, and were
succeeded by elected officials following the May 14, 2007 elections.
Petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal, and Rene O. Medina, former political
leaders and residents of Surigao del Norte, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355, alleging it failed to meet the
constitutionally and statutory required land area and population for the creation of a new
province. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition due to technical grounds, but
the petitioners persisted and filed another petition.
On February 10, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional for not
complying with the mandated land area and population requirements prescribed for the
creation of a province under the Local Government Code (LGC). The decision essentially
nullified Dinagat’s creation and the election of its officials. Motions for reconsideration were
filed and subsequently denied.
Movants-intervention subsequently filed a motion seeking to recall the entry of judgment,

arguing that the nullification of R.A. No. 9355 and the creation of Dinagat Islands would
adversely affect them, including necessitating a special election for positions in the original
province of Surigao del Norte.
Issues:
1. Whether R.A. No. 9355 fulfills the constitutional and statutory requirements for the
creation of a province.
2. Whether the exemption from the land area requirement mentioned in the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) is valid and applicable to Dinagat Islands.
3. Whether the motion for intervention filed by movants-intervention is timely and
meritorious.
Court’s Decision:
© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. 180050. April 12, 2011 (Case Brief / Digest)
The Supreme Court resolved the following:

1. The motion to recall entry of judgment was granted, essentially acknowledging the
reconsideration motion of movants-intervenors.
2. It revisited and set aside its previous ruling, declaring that R.A. No. 9355 was
constitutional, affirming the validity of the provision in the IRR that exempts island
provinces from the minimum land area requirement.
3. Dismissed the initial petition challenging Dinagat Islands’ creation, allowing the
implementation of R.A. No. 9355 and recognizing the election of its officials.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court elucidated the doctrine that laws creating provinces must adhere to
constitutional and statutory requirements, but also clarified and validated the IRR’s
provision exempting island provinces from the minimum land area requirement, recognizing
the unique geographic configuration of the Philippine archipelago.
Class Notes:
– In creating local government units (LGUs), Congress must adhere to constitutional and
statutory requirements regarding population, income, and land area, yet special
considerations apply to geographically distinct entities like island provinces.
– Legislative amendments, whether direct or via interpretation of implementing rules, can
have profound implications on local governance and the constitutionality of statutes
creating LGUs.
– The Court’s power to reinterpret previous decisions based on motions for reconsideration
can lead to significant shifts in legal doctrine and the application of laws.
Historical Background:
The creation of Dinagat Islands as a province, challenged on constitutional grounds, reflects
the complexities of Philippine local governance in the context of its archipelagic nature. The
case underscores the balance between strict adherence to statutory requirements and the
practical realities of governing island territories, also highlighting the judiciary’s role in
interpreting and possibly redefining statutory regulations to address unique local
circumstances.
© 2024 - batas.org | 2

3-G.R. No. 180050. April 12, 2011 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3-G.R. No. 180050. April 12, 2011 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3-G.R. No. 180050. April 12, 2011 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 180050.

April 12, 2011 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: Navarro v. Ermita: A Detailed Examination of the Constitutionality of the Creation of

Movants-intervention subsequently filed a motion seeking to recall the entry of judgment,

The Supreme Court resolved the following:

You might also like