David v Arroyo

Facts:
- This case involves 7 consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition against Former President Gloria Arroyo in
her declaration of national emergency under PP1017 and GO5 where she called upon the AFP and PNP to
suppress the aves of terrorism and lawless violence due to the emergence of rebellion by NDF-CPP-NPA that
resulted to the pressing danger to the economy, democracy, and safety of the Philippines.
- The same proclamation was lifted one week after as the AFP and PNP effectively prevented the terrorism in the
country under PP 1021.
- The petitioners in this case claims that these proclamations were unconstitutional, and hence held protests in the
ff events:
1. Oakwood mutiny
2. Oplan Hackle
3. Minutes between the meeting of Magdalo Group and the NPA
4. Kong. Cojuangco’s plan to oust Arroyo
5. Forge alliances between CPP and NPA
6. Bombing of telecom towers and cell sites in Bulacan and Bataan
7. Rallies of KMU
- Hence, Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defender announced that warrantless arrests can already be
implemented
- After this announcement, several rallyists including media, professors, and party list representatives were arrested
without warrant.

Issues:
1. Whether PP1021 renders the petitions moot and academic (NO)
2. Whether PP 1017 and GO5 are unconstitutional (PARTIAL)

Ruling:

1. First Issue (NO) petition against PP1021 is NOT moot and academic.

Judicial review starts and ends when the government oversteps the constitutional limitations. It requires that an actual
case questioning the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and a moot & academic case is one that
does not have an actual controversy, and hence courts dismiss these cases on grounds of mootness.
Courts decide cases if there is a violation of the constitution that involves public interest and is capable of repetition which
are all present in this case.

2. Second Issue

- The Court rules that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by President Arroyo on the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence.
- However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well
as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared unconstitutional. In addition, the provision in PP 1017
declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is constitutional, but such
declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with
public interest without prior legislation.
- G.O. No. 5 is constitutional since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP
1017, whatever is "necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence." Considering that "acts of terrorism" have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature,
that portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared unconstitutional.
- Warrantless arrests are likewise unconstitutional.
Sanidad v COMELEC
Facts:
- President Marcos issued P.D. 991 calling for a national referendum in 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of
ML that includes the period for the exercise by the President of his powers.
- P.D.1031 was issued, amending P.D. 991 by declaring the provisions of P.D. 229 applicable as to the manner of voting and
canvassing of votes in barangays for the national referendum-plebiscite.
- P.D. 1033 was also issued, declaring that the question of the continuance of ML will be submitted for referendum at the same
time as the submission of the President’s proposed amendments to the Constitution through a plebiscite.
- Sanidad filed suit for Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting said
Referendum-Plebiscite on the basis that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, there is no grant to the incumbent
President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution; hence, the
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no legal basis.
- Petitioner Guzman filed another action asserting that the power to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution
during the transition period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly
- A similar action was instituted by petitioners Gonzales and Salapantan arguing that even granting him legislative powers under
the ML, the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that a
referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.
- The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity. To
lift ML, the President need not consult the people via referendum. Allowing 15-year-olds to vote would amount to an
amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years of
age and above.
- The Solicitor General, in his comment for respondent COMELEC, maintains that Petitioners have no standing to sue and that
the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of the court.
- At this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power.
Issues:

1. Whether the question of the constitutionality of the Presidential Decrees 991, 1031, and 1033 political or judicial?
2. Whether the President possesses the power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set up the required
machinery and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposal, in the absence of an interim National Assembly?
3. Whether the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefore a sufficient and
proper submission?

Ruling:

1. YES. At the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined upon the theory that
the expenditure of public funds by the State for executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. It
is a judicial question.

2. YES. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the Interim Assembly, there is no reason
why he cannot validly discharge the function of that assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but
adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This is not to say that the President has converted his office into a
constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the legislature. Rather, with the Interim Assembly not convened
and only the Presidency and Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the
President to act as agent for and on behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.

SC possesses no capacity to propose amendments without constitutional infractions. For the President to shy away from that
actuality and decline to undertake the amending process would leave the governmental machinery at a stalemate or create in
the powers of the State a destructive vacuum. After all, the constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions are mere
agents of the people.

3. YES. Art. 16 of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states
that: shall be held not later than 3 months after the approval of such amendment or revision. The period from September 21 to
October 16, or a period of three weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues.
The issues are not new. They are the issues of the day, and the people have been living with them since the proclamation of
martial law four years ago.

The referendums of 1973 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. That notwithstanding, the contested brief period for
discussion is not without counterparts in previous plebiscites for constitutional amendments.
Chavez v JBC
Facts:
- This case is a motion for reconsideration as regards the constitutionality of the composition of the JBC.
- The Judicial and Bar Council is a separate, competent, and independent body to recommend nominations for the
judiciary under Section 8 Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed
of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
Court, and a representative of the private sector.
- In 1994, the composition of the JBC was altered by adding another member from the Congress. Hence, in 2001
JBC decided to allow representatives from both houses to have one full vote each.
- Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, a nominee as a potential successor of Former CJ Renato Corona,
questioned the validity of JBC’s decision by assailing its constitutionality that the practice of having 2
representatives from each House of Congress with 1 vote each is sanctioned by the Constitution
- The respondents in this case countered that
● allowing only one representative from Congress in the JBC would lead to absurdity considering its bicameral
nature
● that the failure of the Framers to make the proper adjustment when there was a shift from unilateralism to
bicameralism was a plain oversight

Issues:

1. Whether allowing more than 1 representative from the congress in the JBC violates the constitution (YES)
2. Whether there is no proper adjustment to shift from utilitarianism to bicameralism (NO)

Ruling:
- One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of
constitutional construction that the language employed in the Constitution must be given its ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed.
- To use the singular letter "a" to describe "representative of Congress," the Filipino people through the Framers intended that
Congress be entitled to only 1 seat in the JBC.
- Several provisions in the 1987 Constitution proves the shift to bicameralism such as: “by a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.”, and Section 18 “the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus may be revoked or continued by the Congress, voting separately, by a vote of at least a majority
of all its Members."
- The need to recognize the existence and the role of each House is essential considering that the Constitution employs precise
language in laying down the functions which particular House plays, regardless of whether the two Houses consummate an
official act by voting jointly or separately.
- An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court
cannot simply discount.
- This cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of the
JBC. Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative department. The Constitution mandates that the
JBC be composed of 7 members only.
- An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute.
- The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies
the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored.
- The Court finds the exception applicable in this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the
current composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid.

Held:
- The Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents is hereby DENIED.
- The suspension of the effects of the second paragraph of the dispositive portion "This disposition is immediately executory," is
hereby LIFTED.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance
Facts:

● 10 motions were filed assailing the unconstitutionality of RA 7716 (Expanded Value-Added Tax Law)
● The petitioners are questioning the limitation on the power of the senate to propose amendments to bills that are
required to originate in the HOR

Petitioners’ Contentions:

● R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. The Senate did not pass the
proposed amendment to a House revenue bill on second and third readings.
● In the case, 9 acts were mentioned wherein the Senate, in exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills
required to originate in the House, passed its own version of a House revenue measure
● The rule 29 on amendments provides that “Not more than one amendment to the original amendment shall be
considered. No amendment by substitution shall be entertained unless the text thereof is submitted in writing.”
● According to PH Political Law written by Isagani Cruz, “ bills are supposed to be initiated by the House of
Representatives because it is more numerous in membership and therefore also more representative of the
people” however, the senate is “allowed much leeway in the exercise of its power to propose or concur with
amendments to the bills initiated by the House of Representatives.”
● According to 1935 Consti: “No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been printed and copies
thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least three calendar days prior to its passage, except when the
President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. “
● According to 1973 Consti: “No bill shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members three days before its passage,
except when the Prime Minister certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency.”
● According to the present constitution: “No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.”
● "growing budget deficit" is not an emergency, especially in a country like the Philippines where budget deficit is a
chronic condition.
● Purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be two-fold: (1) to inform the members of
Congress of what they must vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is progressing through the
enacting process, thus enabling them and others interested in the measure to prepare their positions with
reference to it.

PAL’s Contention:

● PAL maintains that R.A. No. 7716 violates Art. VI, 26 (1) of the Constitution which provides that "Every bill passed
by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." PAL contends that the
amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal of its exemption from the VAT is not expressed in the title of the law.
● PAL was exempted from the payment of the VAT along with other entities by the National Internal Revenue Code,
which provides that: “103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: (q)
Transactions which are exempt under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a
signatory.”
● R.A. No. 7716 seeks to withdraw certain exemptions, including that granted to PAL, by amending §103, as
follows: “103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: (q) Transactions
which are exempt under special laws, except those granted under Presidential Decrees”
● It is unnecessary to do this in order to comply with the constitutional requirement, since it is already stated in the
title that the law seeks to amend the pertinent provisions of the NIRC

CREBA’s Contention:
 ● R.A. No. 7716 (1) impairs the obligations of contracts, (2) classifies transactions as covered or exempt without
reasonable basis and (3) violates the rule that taxes should be uniform and equitable and that Congress shall
"evolve a progressive system of taxation." (Regressive)

Issues:

1. Whether RA 7716 is unconstitutional (NO)

2. Whether RA 7716 violates the equality and uniformity of taxation (NO)
3. Whether RA 7716 is regressive taxation (NO)

Ruling:
On tax exemptions

● While R.A. No. 7716 exempts such transactions as the sale of agricultural products, food items, petroleum, and
medical and veterinary services, it grants no exemption on the sale of real property which is equally essential. The
sale of real property for socialized and low-cost housing is exempted from the tax, but CREBA claims that real
estate transactions of "the less poor," i.e., the middle class, who are equally homeless, should likewise be
exempted.

On equality and uniformity

● Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be taxed
at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes
of taxation. To satisfy this requirement it is enough that the statute or ordinance applies equally to all persons,
forms and corporations placed in similar situation.

On progressive taxation

● The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What
it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision
has been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are to be preferred and as much as possible, indirect taxes
should be minimized."
● In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of
certain transactions
● The transactions which are subject to the VAT are those which involve goods and services which are used or
availed of mainly by higher income groups.

On Cooperatives

● It is not true that P.D. No. 1955 singled out cooperatives by withdrawing their exemption from income and sales
taxes under P.D. No. 175. What it did was to withdraw the exemptions and preferential treatments theretofore
granted to private business enterprises in general, in view of the economic crisis which then beset the nation.
Constitution does not really require that cooperatives be granted tax exemptions in order to promote their growth
and viability.

Held:

● RA 7716 suffers from none of the infirmities attributed to it by petitioners and that its enactment by the other
branches of the government does not constitute a grave abuse of discretion.
● Motions for reconsideration are denied with finality
Albino Cunanan et al
Facts:

- Congress passed RA 972 or the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.”

- Under the ROC, "in order that a candidate for admission to the Bar may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75% in all subjects, without falling below
50 per cent in any subject."
- However, through RA 972, the passing rate is amended to the following:

1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%

- The SC then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72% by raising it
to 75%.
- After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending, also invoked the
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission.
- There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without invoking the law in
question.
- To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of
whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.

Issue: Whether RA 972 is unconstitutional

Ruling:

- Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per
its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations.
- Section 2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial
passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
- As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared
in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of
law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules
laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the
court on who can practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.

- As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not gather enough votes to declare it void.
Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953.
- Hence, it will not revoke existing SC resolutions denying admission to the bar of a petitioner.
- The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission
to the practice of law.
Ang Nars Partylist v Executive Secretary
Facts:
- This case is about the compensation rates under RA 6758 which is the Compensation and Classification Act of
1989, and RA 9173 which is the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002 which provides that the minimum base pay of
nurses working in the public health institutions shall not be lower than salary grade 15
- There was a Joint Resolution No. 4 modifying the compensation of civilian personnel and the pay schedule of
military and uniformed personnel in the government, which was eventually passed through EO 811
- In the passing of EO 811, the president modified the compensation for the entry level of nurses from 10 to 11.
- Rep. Paquiz inquired with the DOH and DBM regarding the non-implementation of the Philippine Nursing Act, but
the same was left unanswered. Hence, Ang Nars Partylist filed a petition to assail the constitutionality of EO 811
in accordance with the Philippine Nursing Act.

Issue:
Whether the Legislative Department can amend the Philippine Nursing Act through Joint Reso. 4? (NO)

Ruling:
- The Senate’s definition of a Joint Reso states that it is no different from a bill. However, under Sec. 26, Art. 6 of
the 1987 Consti, only a bill can be enacted into law after following the constitutional requirements.
- The Legislature cannot amend the constitution which recognizes that only a bill can become a law.
- (The case cited how a bill becomes a law)
- Any change in compensation rates should be done by enacting a new law, which cannot be done by a mere joint
resolution.
- The amendatory language can only amend prior congressional resolutions that are inconsistent with the JR4.
Belgica v Executive Secretary
Facts:
- This case is about the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System which is the lump sum funds of the legislature
- The case distinguished how the pork barrel system was executed among the different administration in the
government starting to the pre-martial law era until the administration of president Noynoy Aquino
- Over the years, the supposed appropriation of funds through the pork barrel system has been used to fund
diverse presidential expenses such as the Malampaya (PD910) and the Presidential Social fund (PD1869) or
what is called the Presidential Pork Barrel. However, a controversy started in 1996 which was leaked by
Representative Candazo that the pork barrel regularly went into the pockets of the legislators in the form of
kickbacks from their allocated ghost projects which is now called as the Congressional Pork Barrel.
- In 2013, the defrauded pork barrel system amounted to over 10B in the past 10 years excluding the corrupted
funds from PDAF and VILP amounting to over 40B. Hence, the creation of the Alcantara and Belgica Petition
seeking to declare the Pork Barrel system as unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave
abuse of discretion. On the other hand, Nepomuceno petition seeks to declare the PDAF appropriation
unconstitutional with cease and desist order retraining Pres. Noynoy to release funds to the Congress unless
there is an approval of the concerned government departments.

Issues:

1. Procedural: Whether the case is a matter of judicial review

2. Whether the Congressional Pork Barrel violates the constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b)
non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e) political dynasties; and (f)
local autonomy.
3. Whether the Presidential Pork Barrel is unconstitutional for constituting undue delegation of legislative power

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Political Question Doctrine. The "limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and
controversies carries the assurance that "the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of
government. However, this case involves the resolution in between budget appropriation between branches of the
government, hence, the case is a matter of judicial review.
2. (A) Separation of Powers: Legislative branch of government = power to make laws. Executive branch of
government = power to enforce laws. Judicial branch of government = power to interpret laws. Each department
of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere. Powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch. The
divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally capable of independent
action in exercising their respective mandates. The pork barrel system wrecks the separation of powers between
branches.

(B) Non-delegability of Legislative power: Legislative power shall be exclusively exercised by the body to which the
Constitution has conferred the same, and the same was vested to the Congress consisting of the Senate and HOR. An
exception applies to the rule-making power of the administrative agencies.

(C) Checks and Balances: (Ex: Veto power of the president). In this case, there is failure to apply the checks and balances
between branches for failure to investigate and monitor the implementation and appropriation law.

1. Presidential Pork Barrel is unconstitutional due to undue delegation because it gives the President the
discretionary power as to how the fund of the legislature shall be appropriated. Even though the Presidential
Social Fund is of priority, it should not give the president the power to appropriate any fund of the legislature to
any projects.

Held:
The Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the entire 2013 PDAF Article and all legal provisions of past and
present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, and as well as the Presidential Pork Barrel which is the Malampaya and
Presidential Social Fund.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima
Facts:
- The petitioners in this case are challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335 in their capacity as tax payers.’
- RA 9335 is a law for revenue generation of the BIR and BOC by providing a system of rewards and sanctions
through creating a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.
- The law shall also be intervened by the legislature through the Congressional Oversight Committee (COC).
- The petitioners invoke that through this law,
1. the employees of BIR and BOC will only perform their jobs because of the incentives, hence undermines their
constitutionally mandated duties to serve the people
2. violates the equal protection because this law only provides for incentives only in BIR and BOC
3. And violates the separation of powers in the creation of congressional oversight committee because it permits
legislative participation in the implementation of the law.

Issue:

1. Whether there is violation of accountability of public officers

2. Whether RA 9335 violates the equal protection
3. Whether there is undue delegation of legislative power
4. Whether RA9335 violates the separation of powers

Ruling:

1. Accountability of Public Officers

- RA 9335 provides for the liability of officials and employees of BIR and COC as they are embodied with public
trust.
- Employees of the BIR and the BOC may by law be entitled to a reward when they exceed their revenue targets

2. Equal Protection

- Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF.
- All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be
based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to the purpose of the
law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the
class.
- This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable
foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.

3. Undue Delegation

- RA9335 is based on Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers and Employees and the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act

4. Separation of Powers

- Any post-enactment measures undertaken by the legislative branch should be limited to scrutiny and
investigation; any measure beyond that would undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution
- RA 9335, SEC. 13. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is declared invalid by a competent court, the
remainder of this Act or any provision not affected by such declaration of invalidity shall remain in force and effect.
- The IRR of the law was still valid even without the approval of the COC.

Held:
- The creation of the Congressional Oversight Committee is unconstitutional, while the remaining provisions of RA
9335 are upheld.
Datu Michael Abas Kida v Senate
Facts:
- There are 7 motions in this case which are all assailing the constitutionality of RA 10153 which postponed the
elections in ARMM from August 2011 to May 2013.

Issues:
Among the pertinent issues are the following:

1. Does the 1987 Constitution mandate the synchronization of elections?

2. Does the passage of RA No. 10153 violate the provisions of the 1987 Constitution?

Ruling:

First Issue

- Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the constitutionality of R.A. 10153 in toto. The Court agreed with the
respondent Office of the Solicitor General on its position that the Constitution mandates synchronization, citing
Sections 1, 2 and 5, Article 18 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 18) 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,
Congress necessarily has 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.
- 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 petitioner's 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 10 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 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.