BAI SANDRA SEMA v. COMELEC; DIDAGEN DILANGALEN (GR No.

177597)
PERFECTO MARQUEZ v. COMELEC (GR No. 178628)
16 July 2008; Carpio, J. / Digest Prepared by Hans Santos
FACTS
Maguindanao forms part of the ARMM. Under the ORDINANCE appended to the 1987
Constitution, it has two legislative districts. The first legislative district is composed Cotabato City and
eight municipalities. However, Cotabato City is itself not part of ARMM but is part of Region XII, as it
voted against its inclusion in a November 1989 plebiscite.
The ARMM Organic Act (RA 6734, as amended by RA 9054) provides for the power of the ARMM
Regional Assembly to create provinces in Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054. On August 2006, the
Assembly exercised this power by passing Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201, and creating the
Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, composed of the eight ARMM municipalities included in the first
legislative district of Maguindanao. It later carved out municipalities in the new Province to bring the
total number to eleven. This was ratified in a plebiscite by the voters of Maguindanao, held on 29
October 2006.
In response to a query by Cotabato City, the COMELEC issued Resolution No 07-0407 on 6 March
2007, maintaining the status quo that Cotabato City shall be part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First
Legislative District of Maguindanao. However, on 29 March 2007, it issued Resolution No. 7845 stating
that the First Legislative District of Maguindanao was composed only of Cotabato City as a result of
MMA 201. Finally, on 10 May 2007, it issued Resolution No 7902, amending the first resolution and
renaming the legislative district as that of “Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City.”
[GR No. 177597] SEMA, a candidate for Representative of the mentioned legislative district, prayed for
nullification of the Resolution 7902, and exclusion from canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City for
that office.
Arguments of the Parties
In pleadings
SEMA: Art. VI, Sec 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the appended Ordinance
provides that each province is entitled to a Representative.
COMELEC: SEMA wrongly availed of certiorari, as it was exercising administrative (not quasi-
judicial) functions in issuing the assailed Resolutions. Further, the case is rendered moot by the
proclamation of DINGALEN as Representative of the said legislative district.
DINGALEN: SEMA is estopped from questioning the Resolution as she had indicated in her
Certificate of Candidacy that she was running for the District of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with
Cotabato City, and she had campaigned is such areas. The COMELEC did not reapportion the
First District of Maguindanao to include only Cotabato City as such power lies only with
Congress, and the city does not meet the requirement under the Constitution of a 250,000
population.
Oral Argument #1 – WON a province created under the ARMM Organic Act would be entitled to a
Representative without need of a national law
SEMA: YES. In Felwa v. Salas, the Court ruled that when a province is created by statute the
corresponding legislative district comes into existence by operation of the Constitution. This is
affirmed by Sec. 462 of RA 7160, and mandated by Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) of the Constitution and
 Section 3 of the appended Ordinance. The grant of power to prescribe standards lower than
those in RA 7160 should be construed as prohibiting standards lower than the minimum criteria.
COMELEC: YES. Joined cause with SEMA, arguing that Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) was self-executing.
DINGALEN: NO. Art. VI, Sec 5(3) contemplates a province created by national law. Art. IV,
Section 3 of RA 9054 withheld from the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to enact measures
relating to national elections. Granting a leglistative district for every province created by the
ARMM Regional Assembly would lead to disproportionate representation as the Assembly can
disregard the requirements of RA 7160. Cotabato City has a population of less than 250,000.
Oral Argument # 2 – WON Sec. 19 of RA 9052 was constitutional
SEMA: YES. It is a valid as a delegation under Art. X, Sec. 20(9) of legislative power over “other
matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of
that region,” and as an amendment of RA 7160.
DINGALEN: NO. The power to create provinces was not among those granted under Art. VI, Sec.
5(3) of the Constitution. The grant under RA 9054 contravenes the Equal Protection Clause as
well as Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, providing that no province shall be created, except in
accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and upon approval in
plebiscite.
COMELEC: NO. Joined cause with DINGALEN, arguing that Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) was self-executing.
[GR No. 178628] MARQUEZ also alleges the nullity of Resolution 7902. As a taxpayer and resident of
Cotabato City, he prayed that special elections be conducted for his city as they could not be included in
the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan.
ISSUES-HELD-RATIO
[GR No. 177597]
WON the writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus are proper to test the constitutionality of
Resolution No. 7902: YES, it has been ruled that Prohibition was proper to test the constitutionality of
election laws, rules and regulations.
WON the first petition has been rendered moot by the proclamation of DINGALEN as Representative:
NO, the ruling will affect not only the recently concluded elections but succeeding elections for the
office in question, as well as the power of the ARMM Regional Assembly to create provinces.
WON Art. VI, Sec. 19 of RA 9054 is constitutional: NO
 Under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislatve bodies the power
to create local government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict
arises with any provision of the Constitution.
 Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) provides that each city with a population of 250,000 and each provides shall
have at least one Representative. Delegation of the power to create a province requires also
delegation of the power to create a legislative district. This is also required in delegation of the
power to create a city, as such city automatically becomes entitled to one Representative upon
reaching a population of 250,000.
 The power to create legislative districts out of existing ones is included in the power to
reapportion districts, which is textually committed to Congress in Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) of the
Constitution. Thus, the power cannot be delegated.
  It would also be anomalous for regional legislative bodies to create districts for the national
legislature, especially as Art. X, Sec. 20 limits the coverage of the Regional Assembly’s legislative
power “within its territorial jurisdiction.”
WON the province created by MMA Act 201, pursuant to such Sec. 19 is entitled to one
Representative without need of a national law: NO
 The Felwa case relied upon by SEMA for her theory is inapplicable as it involved the creation of
provinces by virtue of a special law enacted by Congress.
 The theory would undermine the composition of the House of Representatives as the Section
also provides that the Regional Assembly may create provinces or cities without regard to the
criteria fixed in RA 7160. Theoretically, continuous creation of provinces and cities not
complying with the criteria will allow ARMM to obtain more seats in the House of
Representatives.
[GR No. 178628]
WON Resolution 7902 was valid for maintaining the status quo in the First Legislative District of
Maguindanao: YES, it merely complies with Art. VI, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, and Section 3 of the
appended Ordinance.

Petition DENIED. Art. VI, Sec. 19 of RA 9054 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MMA Act No. 201 declared
VOID, and Resolution No. 7902 declared VALID.

Tinga, dissenting/concurring
 Concurs insofar as the petitions should be denied but on different grounds. The first petition on
the ground that SEMA is estopped, and the second on the ground that it has been filed out of
time.
 On the issue of Local Autonomy, Tinga stated that the ponencia did not consider the
constitutional principle of local governance and autonomy in its ruling. Notably, it declared
invalid both Art. VI, Sec. 19 of RA 9054 and MMA Act No. 201, when such a ruling was not
sought by either petitioner. The discussion of Local Autonomy can be found in Part IV of the
Dissent.
 Quoting Disomangcop v. Datumanong, Tinga noted that the provisions for the autonomous
regions were intended by the framers to address the struggle for self-determination of Filipino
Muslims and of the people of the Cordillera. Crystallizing the interplay between regional
autonomy and national sovereignty, that Decision stated:
“In international law, the right to self-determination need not be understood as a right
to political separation, but rather as a complex net of legal-political relations between a
certain people and the state authorities. It ensures the right of peoples to the necessary
level of autonomy that would guarantee the support of their own cultural identity, the
establishment of priorities by the community's internal decision-making processes and
the management of collective matters by themselves.
If self-determination is viewed as an end in itself reflecting a preference for
homogeneous, independent nation-states, it is incapable of universal application
without massive disruption. However, if self-determination is viewed as a means to an
end — that end being a democratic, participatory political and economic system in
which the rights of individuals and the identity of minority communities are protected —
its continuing validity is more easily perceived.
XXX
The objective of the autonomy system is to permit determined groups, with a common
tradition and shared social-cultural characteristics, to develop freely their ways of life
and heritage, exercise their rights, and be in charge of their own business. This is
achieved through the establishment of a special governance regime for certain member
communities who choose their own authorities from within the community and exercise
the jurisdictional authority legally accorded to them to decide internal community
affairs..”