In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines struck down Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands, for failing to meet the land area or population requirements stipulated in the Local Government Code. The Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates strict adherence to the criteria established in the Code for the creation of local government units. This ruling reinforces the importance of complying with statutory requirements to ensure the validity and constitutionality of creating new provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangays.

Dinagat Islands: Can an Island Province Sidestep Land Area Requirements?

The case of Navarro v. Ermita arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands. Petitioners, taxpayers and residents of Surigao del Norte, argued that the new province did not meet the requisites for creation under Section 461 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). The legal battle centered on whether Dinagat Islands, primarily composed of several islands, could be exempted from the land area requirement typically imposed on the creation of a new province.

Section 461 of the Local Government Code outlines the requisites for the creation of a province. It specifies that a province may be created if it possesses an average annual income of at least P20 million, as certified by the Department of Finance, and either a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau, or a population of not less than 250,000 inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO). Significantly, the Code also states that the territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province.

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 constant 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.

Dinagat Islands, as a proposed province, had a land area of only 802.12 square kilometers, well below the 2,000 square kilometer threshold. Furthermore, based on the 2000 Census, the population was only 106,951, far short of the 250,000 inhabitants required. While the province claimed an average annual income exceeding the P20 million requirement, the crucial question was whether the island nature of the territory could exempt it from the land area requirement altogether.

The respondents relied on paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, which stated that “[t]he land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.” The Supreme Court, however, invalidated this provision, holding that it contradicted the express provisions of the Local Government Code. The Court emphasized that implementing rules cannot expand or modify the law they are intended to implement.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, referenced the case of Tan v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), where it was clarified that the term “territory” refers to the land mass and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control. The Court stated that the use of the word territory in the specific provision of the Local Government Code, particularly in the sentence stating that the “territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two or more islands,” clearly indicates that territory as used therein only refers to the mass of land area and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control.

The use of the word territory in this particular provision of the Local Government Code and in the very last sentence thereof, clearly, reflects that territory as therein used, has reference only to the mass of land area and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control.

The Court emphasized that if the legislators had intended that the term “territory” embrace not only land area but also territorial waters, there would have been no need to use the word contiguous. This is because contiguous, when employed as an adjective, is only used when it describes physical contact, or a touching of sides of two solid masses of matter. Therefore, the Court concluded that the word territory in the first paragraph of Section 197, which is the counterpart provision in the former Local Government Code, is meant to be synonymous with “land area” only.

The Court found that R.A. No. 9355 failed to comply with either the territorial or the population requirement. While the law stated that the Province of Dinagat Islands contained an approximate land area of 802.12 square kilometers, this fell far short of the 2,000 square kilometer requirement. Moreover, based on the 2000 Census, the population was only 106,951. The Court also noted that a special census conducted by the Provincial Government of Surigao del Norte, which yielded a population count of 371,000, was not certified by the NSO as required by the Local Government Code.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the lack of certification by the NSO was cured by the presence of NSO officials during the deliberations on the house bill creating the Province of Dinagat Islands. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the NSO representative, Statistician II Ma. Solita C. Vergara, stated that based on their computation, the population requirement of 250,000 inhabitants would be attained by the Province of Dinagat Islands by the year 2065. This computation was based on the growth rate of the population, excluding migration.

Finally, the petitioners alleged that R.A. No. 9355 was ratified by a doubtful mandate in a plebiscite held on December 2, 2005, where the “yes” votes were 69,9343, while the “no” votes were 63,502. They contended that the 100% turnout of voters in the precincts of San Jose, Basilisa, Dinagat, Cagdianao and Libjo was contrary to human experience, and that the results were statistically improbable. The Court stated that allegations of fraud and irregularities in the conduct of a plebiscite are factual in nature, and cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is a remedy designed only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional for its failure to comply with the criteria for the creation of a province prescribed in Sec. 461 of the Local Government Code. The proclamation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials thereof were declared null and void.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code, specifically regarding land area and population.
What did the Local Government Code require for the creation of a province?	The Local Government Code requires a certain income level and either a minimum land area or a minimum population, as certified by the relevant government agencies.
Why did the Supreme Court declare R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional?	The Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional because Dinagat Islands failed to meet either the minimum land area or the minimum population requirement prescribed by the Local Government Code.
Did the island nature of Dinagat Islands provide an exemption from the land area requirement?	The Court ruled that the island nature of Dinagat Islands did not provide an exemption from the land area requirement. The implementing rules stating otherwise were declared null and void.
What is the significance of the Tan v. COMELEC case in this ruling?	The Tan v. COMELEC case clarified that the term “territory” in the context of creating local government units refers to land area and excludes territorial waters.
What happens to the officials elected in Dinagat Islands after this ruling?	The election of officials in the Province of Dinagat Islands was declared null and void, effectively removing them from their positions.
What was the effect on the municipalities that comprised Dinagat Islands?	The municipalities that comprised the Province of Dinagat Islands reverted to their former status before the enactment of R.A. No. 9355.
What is gerrymandering and was it an issue in this case?	Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party or candidate. The Court found the claim of gerrymandering to be unsubstantiated.
What are implementing rules and regulations (IRR)?	Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are guidelines issued by government agencies to provide the details necessary to carry out the provisions of a law. They cannot go beyond the scope of the law itself.

This Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Code in the creation of local government units. It serves as a reminder that any deviation from these requirements, even if seemingly minor, can render the creation of a province or other local government unit unconstitutional. This ruling has significant implications for future attempts to create new provinces and other local government units in the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010