[02] Navarro v.
Ermita ISSUE AND RULING:
G.R. No. 180050 | February 10, 2010 | Peralta
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL,
and RENE O. MEDINA
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 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
TOPIC: Creation and Alteration of Local Government Units
FACTS:
 The National Statistics Office certified that Dinagat Islands’ population is 120,813.
Its land area is 802.12 square kilometers and its average annual income is
P82,696,433.23, as certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance.
 October 2, 2006: the President approved into law R.A. 9355 creating the Province
of Dinagat Islands.
 December 3, 2006: the COMELEC conducted the mandatory plebiscite for the
ratification of the creation of the province under the LGC which yielded 69,943
affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes.
o With the approval of the people from both the mother province of Surigao
del Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat), the President
appointed the interim set of provincial officials who took their oath of
office on January 26, 2007.
o Later, during the May 14, 2007 synchronized elections, the Dinagatnons
elected their new set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1,
2007.
 November 10, 2006: petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro and other former political
leaders of Surigao del Norte, filed before the SC a petition for certiorari and
prohibition (G.R. No. 175158) challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355
alleging that that the creation of Dinagat as a new province, if uncorrected,
would perpetuate an illegal act of Congress, and would unjustly deprive the
people of Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the provincial territory, Internal
Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich resources from the area.
 WON R.A. No. 9355 is constitutional – NO. (2010 Ruling); YES (2011 Ruling)
February 10, 2010 Ruling
 No. The SC ruled that the population of 120,813 is below the Local Government
Code (LGC) minimum population requirement of 250,000 inhabitants.
 Neither did Dinagat Islands, with an approximate land area of 802.12 square
kilometers meet the LGC minimum land area requirement of 2,000 square
kilometers.
 The Court reiterated its ruling that paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, which exempts
proposed provinces composed of one or more islands from the land area
requirement, was null and void as the said exemption is not found in Sec. 461 of
the LGC. “There is no dispute that in 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,” held the Court. (GR No. 180050, Navarro v. Ermita, May 12, 2010)
 The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Dinagat
filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Decision. In its
Resolution dated May 12, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the said motions.
April 12, 2011 Ruling
 Yes. In Navarro vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. no. 180050, April 12, 2011), the
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 9355 is as VALID and
CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the Province of Dinagat Islands
and the election of the officials thereof are declared VALID.
 The SC also ruled that the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 stating, “The land area
requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1)
or more islands,” is declared VALID.
 According to the SC, “with respect to the creation of barangays, land area is not a
requisite indicator of viability. However, with respect to the creation of
municipalities, component cities, and provinces, the three (3) indicators of
viability and projected capacity to provide services, i.e., income, population, and
land area, are provided for.”
 “But it must be pointed out that when the local government unit to be created
consists of one (1) or more islands, it is exempt from the land area requirement as
 expressly provided in Section 442 and Section 450 of the LGC if the local
government unit to be created is a municipality or a component city,
respectively. This exemption is absent in the enumeration of the requisites for the
creation of a province under Section 461 of the LGC, although it is expressly
stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.”
 xxx “There appears neither rhyme nor reason why this exemption should apply
to cities and municipalities, but not to provinces. In fact, considering the physical
configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood that
islands or group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly-created
province than in most cities or municipalities.
 It is, therefore, logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision was
expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and Section 450 (for component
cities) of the LGC, but was inadvertently omitted in Section 461 (for provinces).
 Thus, when the exemption was expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the LGC-
IRR, the inclusion was intended to correct the congressional oversight in Section
461 of the LGC – and to reflect the true legislative intent. It would, then, be in
order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.”
 xxx“Consistent with the declared policy to provide local government units
genuine and meaningful local autonomy, contiguity and minimum land area
requirements for prospective local government units should be liberally
construed in order to achieve the desired results.
 Moreover, The strict interpretation adopted by the February 10, 2010 Decision
could prove to be counter-productive, if not outright absurd, awkward, and
impractical. Picture an intended province that consists of several municipalities
and component cities which, in themselves, also consist of islands.
 This preferential option would prove more difficult and burdensome if the 2,000-
square-kilometer territory of a province is scattered because the islands are
separated by bodies of water, as compared to one with a contiguous land mass.”
 xxx “What is more, the land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of
a local government unit, is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot
become a province, taking into account its average annual income of
P82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local
Government Finance, which is four times more than the minimum requirement
of P20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province.
 The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and
sustainable. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10,
2010 elections as mere fait accompli circumstances which cannot operate in favor
of Dinagat’s existence as a province, they must be seen from the perspective that
Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province.”
DISPOSITIVE:

Illogical
 The component cities and municipalities which consist of islands are exempt
from the minimum land area requirement, pursuant to Sections 450 and 442,
respectively, of the LGC.
 Yet, the province would be made to comply with the minimum land area
criterion of 2,000 square kilometers, even if it consists of several islands. This
would mean that Congress has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a
province with contiguous land area over one composed of islands — and negate
the greater imperative of development of self-reliant communities, rural
progress, and the delivery of basic services to the constituency.