Tag: Creation of Province

Island Provinces and the Constitution: Dinagat Islands’ Creation Challenged

The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands, unconstitutional because it failed to meet the minimum land area and population requirements set by the Local Government Code. This decision underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the criteria established by law when creating new local government units, ensuring they are viable and sustainable.

Island Status vs. Constitutional Mandate: Did Dinagat Islands Meet the Test?

The case of Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al. revolves around the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and whether it complied with the requisites outlined in the Local Government Code (LGC) for the creation of a new province. Petitioners argued that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355, which established Dinagat Islands, did not meet the necessary land area and population requirements. The respondents, including the Executive Secretary and the Governor of Dinagat Islands, contended that the province complied with all requirements, particularly noting that the land area requirement should not apply to provinces composed of islands.

At the heart of the controversy is Section 461 of the Local Government Code, which stipulates the requisites for creating a province. It states that a province must have a minimum average annual income and either a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers or a population of at least 250,000 inhabitants. The law also states:

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.

(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.

Dinagat Islands has a land area of approximately 802.12 square kilometers, far short of the 2,000 square kilometer requirement. Its population, according to the 2000 Census, was only 106,951, also significantly below the required 250,000. Respondents argued that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC provide an exemption for provinces composed of islands regarding the land area requirement. However, the Supreme Court struck down this provision of the IRR, emphasizing the principle that:

[I]n case of discrepancy between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the said law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.

The Court found that the IRR provision contradicted the explicit requirements of the Local Government Code. The respondents contended that if a province is composed of two or more islands, it should be exempt from both the contiguity and the 2,000-square-kilometer land area requirements. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the exemption from contiguity does not automatically imply an exemption from the land area requirement. The court also noted that the Local Government Code requires verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, including sufficient land area to provide basic services to the populace. This implies that even island provinces must have a sufficient land area to meet the needs of their inhabitants.

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

Nowhere in paragraph (b) is it expressly stated or may it be implied that when a province is composed of two or more islands, or when the territory of a province is separated by a chartered city or cities, such province need not comply with the land area requirement of at least 2,000 square kilometers or the requirement in paragraph (a) (i) of Section 461 of the Local Government Code.

The Court rejected the argument that the presumption of validity of R.A. No. 9355 should be upheld, explaining that the Constitution mandates compliance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code for the creation of provinces. The Court stressed that the power to create local government units is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and the LGC.

The Court also dismissed the applicability of the operative fact doctrine, which could have recognized the effects of the law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality. It distinguished this case from League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, where the operative fact doctrine was applied to uphold the creation of several cities. Here, the Court found a clear and utter failure to comply with the population and territorial requirements.

In essence, the Court reaffirmed its duty to ensure that all branches of government act within the limits of the Constitution, stating that:

To abandon this duty only because the Province of Dinagat Islands has began its existence is to consent to the passage of a law that is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and the Local Government Code, rendering the law and the province created null and void. The Court cannot tolerate such nullity to be in existence. Where the acts of other branches of the government go beyond the limit imposed by the Constitution, it is the sacred duty of the judiciary to nullify the same.

The Court’s decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to the criteria set forth in the Local Government Code for the creation of local government units. It reinforces the principle that while the legislature has the power to create provinces, this power is not unlimited and must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the LGC. The case also clarifies that the island status of a province does not automatically exempt it from the land area requirement.

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 land area and population requirements set forth in the Local Government Code (LGC).
Why did the Supreme Court declare R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional?	The Supreme Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional because the Province of Dinagat Islands did not meet either the minimum land area or the minimum population requirements stipulated in Section 461 of the LGC.
What is the land area requirement for creating a province under the LGC?	Under Section 461 of the LGC, a province must have a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau.
What is the population requirement for creating a province under the LGC?	A province must have a population of not less than 250,000 inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office.
Did the Province of Dinagat Islands meet the income requirement?	Yes, the Province of Dinagat Islands met the income requirement, which was not the primary issue in this case.
What did the respondents argue regarding the land area requirement?	The respondents argued that the land area requirement should not apply to the Province of Dinagat Islands because it is composed of multiple islands.
What did the Court say about the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)?	The Court declared a portion of the IRR null and void, finding that it contradicted the Local Government Code by exempting island provinces from the land area requirement.
What is the operative fact doctrine, and why didn’t it apply here?	The operative fact doctrine recognizes the effects of a law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality, but the Court found that the utter failure to comply with legal requirements made its application inappropriate in this case.
Does this ruling affect other island provinces?	This ruling clarifies that all provinces, including those composed of islands, must generally comply with the land area and population requirements of the Local Government Code, subject to any specific exemptions explicitly provided in the law itself.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Navarro v. Ermita reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific requirements outlined in the Local Government Code for the creation of new provinces, even in the case of island territories. This ruling ensures that local government units are established on a sound legal and constitutional basis, promoting effective governance and sustainable development.

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: 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., G.R. No. 180050, May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Upholding Local Government Code: Creation of Province Based on Land Area and Population Requirements

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.

February 10, 2010