Case Digest: Abas Kida v.

Senate

G.R. No. 196271, : October 18, 2011

DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, in his personal capacity, and in representation

of MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION OF AUTONOMOUS IRRIGATORS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by its President JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Respondents.
FACTS:
On August 1, 1989 or two years after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution,
Congress acted through Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 entitled "An Act Providing for an
Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao."The initially assenting
provinces were Lanao del Sur,Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-tawi.RA No. 6734
scheduled the first regular elections for the regional officials of the ARMM on a date
not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its ratification.
Thereafter, R.A. No. 9054 was passed to further enhance the structure of ARMM
under R.A. 6734. Along with it is the reset of the regular elections for the ARMM
regional officials to the second Monday of September 2001.
RA No. 9333was subsequently passed by Congress to reset the ARMM regional
elections to the 2ndMonday of August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years
thereafter. Unlike RA No. 6734 and RA No. 9054, RA No. 9333 was not ratified in a
plebiscite.
Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been held
onAugust 8, 2011. COMELEC had begun preparations for these elections and had
accepted certificates of candidacies for the various regional offices to be
elected.But onJune 30, 2011, RA No. 10153 was enacted, resetting the ARMM
elections to May 2013, to coincide with the regular national and local elections of
the country.With the enactment into law of RA No. 10153, the COMELEC stopped its
preparations for the ARMM elections.
Several cases for certiorari, prohibition and madamus originating from different
parties arose as a consequence of the passage of R.A. No. 9333 and R.A. No. 10153
questioning the validity of said laws.
OnSeptember 13, 2011, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
the implementation of RA No. 10153 and ordering the incumbent elective officials of
ARMM to continue to perform their functions should these cases not be decided by
the end of their term onSeptember 30, 2011.
The petitioners assailing RA No. 9140, RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 assert that
these laws amend RA No. 9054 and thus, have to comply with the supermajority
vote and plebiscite requirements prescribed under Sections 1 and 3, Article XVII of
RA No. 9094 in order to become effective.
The petitions assailing RA No. 10153 further maintain that it is unconstitutional for
its failure to comply with the three-reading requirement of Section 26(2), Article VI
of the Constitution.Also cited as grounds are the alleged violations of the right of
suffrage of the people of ARMM, as well as the failure to adhere to the "elective and
representative" character of the executive and legislative departments of the
ARMM. Lastly, the petitioners challenged the grant to the President of the power to
appoint OICs to undertake the functions of the elective ARMM officials until the
officials elected under the May 2013 regular elections shall have assumed

office. Corrolarily, they also argue that the power of appointment also gave the
President the power of control over the ARMM, in complete violation of Section 16,
Article X of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
A. Whether or not the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of
elections
B. Whether or not the passage of RA No. 10153 violates the provisions of
the 1987 Constitution
HELD:
Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the constitutionality of R.A.
10153 in toto. The Court agreed with respondent Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) on its position that the Constitution mandates synchronization, citing Sections
1, 2 and 5, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the 1987 Constitution. While the
Constitution does not expressly state that Congress has to synchronize national and
local elections, the clear intent towards this objective can be gleaned from the
Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution,which show the extent to
which the Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making adjustments to the
terms of the incumbent officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections.
The objective behind setting a common termination date for all elective officials,
done among others through the shortening the terms of the twelve winning
senators with the least number of votes, is to synchronize the holding of all future
elections whether national or local to once every three years.This intention finds full
support in the discussions during the Constitutional Commission deliberations.
Furthermore, to achieve synchronization, Congressnecessarilyhas to reconcile the
schedule of the ARMMs regular elections (which should have been held in August
2011 based on RA No. 9333) with the fixed schedule of the national and local
elections (fixed by RA No. 7166 to be held in May 2013).
InOsme v. Commission on Elections, the court thus explained:
It is clear from the aforequoted provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the terms of
office of Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, the local officials, the
President and the Vice-President have been synchronized to end on the same hour,
date and year noon of June 30, 1992.
It is likewise evident from the wording of the above-mentioned Sections that the
term ofsynchronizationis used synonymously as the phraseholding
simultaneouslysince this is the precise intent in terminating their Office Tenure on
the sameday or occasion.This common termination date will synchronize future
elections to once every three years (Bernas, the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, Vol. II, p. 605).
That the election for Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the
local officials (under Sec. 2, Art. XVIII) will have to be synchronized with the election
for President and Vice President (under Sec. 5, Art. XVIII) is likewise evident from the
x x xrecords of the proceedings in the Constitutional Commission. [Emphasis
supplied.]

Although called regional elections, the ARMM elections should be included among
the elections to be synchronized as it is a "local" election based on the wording and
structure of the Constitution. Regional elections in the ARMM for the positions of
governor, vice-governor and regional assembly representatives fall within the
classification of "local" elections, since they pertain to the elected officials who will
serve within the limited region of ARMM. From the perspective of the Constitution,
autonomous regions are considered one of the forms of local governments, as
evident from Article Xof the Constitution entitled "Local Government."Autonomous
regions are established and discussed under Sections 15 to 21 of this Article the
article wholly devoted to Local Government.
Second issue: Congress, in passing RA No. 10153, acted strictly within its
constitutional mandate. Given an array of choices, it acted within due constitutional
bounds and with marked reasonableness in light of the necessary adjustments that
synchronization demands. Congress, therefore, cannot be accused of any evasion of
a positive duty or of a refusal to perform its duty nor is there reason to accord merit
to the petitioners claims of grave abuse of discretion.
In relation with synchronization, both autonomy and the synchronization of national
and local elections are recognized and established constitutional mandates, with
one being as compelling as the other.If their compelling force differs at all, the
difference is in their coverage; synchronization operates on and affects the whole
country, while regional autonomy as the term suggests directly carries a narrower
regional effect although its national effect cannot be discounted.
In all these, the need for interim measures is dictated by necessity; out-of-the-way
arrangements and approaches were adopted or used in order to adjust to the goal
or objective in sight in a manner that does not do violence to the Constitution and
to reasonably accepted norms.Under these limitations, the choice of measures was
a question of wisdom left to congressional discretion.
However, the holdover contained in R.A. No. 10153, for those who were elected in
executive and legislative positions in the ARMM during the 2008-2011 term as an
option that Congress could have chosen because a holdover violates Section 8,
Article X of the Constitution. In the case of the terms of local officials, their term has
been fixed clearly and unequivocally, allowing no room for any implementing
legislation with respect to the fixed term itself and no vagueness that would allow
an interpretation from this Court. Thus, the term of three years for local officials
should stay at three (3) years as fixed by the Constitution and cannot be extended
by holdover by Congress.
RA No. 10153, does not in any way amend what the organic law of the ARMM(RA No.
9054) sets outs in terms of structure of governance.What RA No. 10153 in fact only
does is to"appoint officers-in-charge for the Office of the Regional Governor,
Regional Vice Governor and Members of the Regional Legislative Assembly who
shall perform the functions pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly
elected in the May 2013 elections shall have qualified and assumed office."This
power is far different from appointing elective ARMM officials for the abbreviated
term ending on the assumption to office of the officials elected in the May 2013

elections. It must be therefore emphasized that the law must be interpreted as an

interim measure to synchronize elections and must not be interpreted otherwise.