Datu Michael Abas Kida vs.

Senate of the Philippines

G.R. N0. 196271
October 18, 2011

FACTS
Two years after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the congress acting thru Republic Act No.
6734 entitled “An Act providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao” scheduled the very first regular elections for the two regions of the ARMM which is
to be held not earlier than 60 days or not later than 90 days after it has been ratified. Thereafter,
RA No. 9054 amended the structure of the ARMM which was established under RA 6734, it also
rest the elections of the ARMM regional officials to the 2nd of September 2001 which, was then
reset to November 2001 under RA 9140. Subsequently, RA 9333 reset for the third time, the
ARMM regional elections to the 2nd Monday of August 2005 and on the same date every 3 years
that follow. Unlike the previous Republic Acts, R.A. No. 9333 was not ratified properly in a
plebiscite.
With respect to R.A. No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been scheduled
and held on August 8, 2011. COMELEC had actually begun the said preparations and had started
accepting certificates of candidacies for the numerous regional offices which are to be elected.
However, on June 30, 2011, Republic Act No. 10153 was enacted with the aim of synchronizing
the ARMM regular elections with the regular national and local elections of the country which,
would have the effect of moving the ARMM elections from August 2011 to May 2013.
These consolidated petitions filed directly with the Supreme Court, assailed the constitutionality
of R.A. No. 10153.
ISSUE
Does the passage of RA No. 10153 violate the three-readings-on-separate-days rule under Section
26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution?
RULING
NO, the passage of RA No. 10153 DOES NOT violate the three-readings-on-separate-days
requirement in Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
It is the general rule that, before bills passed by either the House or Senate can become laws, they
must first undergo through three readings on separate days. It is subject however to the exception
that, when the President certifies the necessity of the bill’s immediate enactment. In the case of
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, it was explained what would be the effect of the President’s
certification of necessity in the following manner:
The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of
reading the bill on separate days. The phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity
of its immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VI, Section 26[2] qualifies the two stated conditions
before a bill can become a law: [i] the bill has passed three readings on separate days and [ii] it has
been printed in its final form and distributed three days before it is finally approved.
In the present case, the records show that the President wrote to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives to certify the necessity of the immediate enactment of a law synchronizing the
ARMM elections with the national and local elections. Following the Tolentino ruling, the
President’s certification exempted both the House and the Senate from having to comply with the
three separate readings requirement.