December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177597 : December 16, 2008] BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 178628]
PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
ALI PENDINATAR, INTERVENOR. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 177597 : December 16, 2008]
BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 178628]
PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
ALI PENDINATAR, INTERVENOR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated December 16, 2008
G.R. No. 177597 - BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents.
G.R. No. 178628 - PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents.
ALI PENDINATAR, Intervenor.
RESOLUTION
The following parties filed motions for intervention and motions for reconsideration of our Decision in G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628: Province of Shanff Kabunsuan Represented by its Acting Provincial Governor Ibrahim P. Ibay (the Province), Ali Pendinatar (Pendinatar), Dalu Tucao O. Mastura (Datu JVlastura), Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association, represented by its President, Engr. Abdulrahman K. Asim (SKPEA), and Liga ng tnga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Shariff Kabunsuan Chapter, represented by its President, Datu AH Gumaga (SK Chapter). Petitioner in G.R. No. 178628, Perfecto F. Marquez, also filed a motion for reconsideration.
In our Resolution dated 5 August 2008, we granted the Motions to Intervene filed by the Province and by Pendinatar. In our Resolution dated 12 August 2008, we granted the Motions to Intervene filed by Datu Mastura and by SKPEA. Finally, in our Resolution dated 16 September 2008, we granted the Motion to Intervene filed by SK Chapter.
In his very urgent motion for consolidation dated 4 September 2008, intervenor Pendinatar prayed that G.R. Nos. 181312 (Datu Bimbo O. Sinsnat, Sr, v. Commission on Elections, The Special Provincial Board of Canvassers of Shariff Kabunsuan, and Datu Tucao O. Mastura) and 181778 (Datu Bimbo Q. Sinsuat, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, et al.) be consolidated with G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628 on the premise that there is a common question of law in all the said cases.
Acting on the Motion for Consolidation of G.R. Nos. 181312 and 181778 with G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628, this Court resolves to DENY the Motion for Consolidation, considering that the petitions were dismissed in the Decision promulgated on 16 July 2008.
Acting on the Motions for Reconsideration of G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628, this Court resolves to DENY WITH FINALITY the Motions for Reconsideration filed by intervenors Province of Shariff Kabunsuan Represented by its Acting Provincial Governor Ibrahim P. Ibay, Ali Pendinatar, Datu Tucao O. Mastura, Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association, represented by its President, Engr. Abdurrahman K. Asim, and Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Shariff Kabunsuan Chapter, represented by its President, Datu Ali Gumaga, as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in G.R. No. 178628, Perfecto F. Marquez, there being no compelling reason nor substantial argument to warrant the reversal of the questioned Decision.
The Justices who filed their respective concurring and dissenting opinions maintain their respective positions. Justice Dante O. Tinga filed a concurring and dissenting opinion to the Decision in G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628; Justices Consuelo Yiiares-Santiago, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion joined him in his concurring and dissenting opinion.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part.
(With attached Dissenting Opinion of Justice Dante O. Tinga)
DISSENTING OPINION
TINGA, J.:
I reiterate my previous Separate Opinion, especially my vote to uphold the constitutionality of Section 19, Article VI of Rep. Act No. 9054. 1 wish though to cite a few points raised in the several motions for reconsideration fded against the Court's Decision dated 16 July 2008.
The parties to these petitions are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), private citizen Perfecto Marquez, and the two congressional candidates for the congressional seat of what originally was the First District of Maguindanao, namely: Bai Sandra Sema and Didagen Dilangalen. The issuance assailed in the petitions was the COMELEC Resolution maintaining the composition of the First District of Maguindanao even though some of its component municipalities now belong to the newly-created province of Shariff Kabunsuan. The validity of the law passed by the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) creating Shariff Kabunsuan was not directly attacked in the petitions. Neither was Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 9054. It is apparent that the petitions, on their face, could not have litigated the validity of the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan as an issue. Neither were there parties in these cases who could have wholeheartedly defended the interests of the province before this Court. Still, a majority opted to annul the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan, placing in jeopardy an entire milieu of legal rights and obligations established along with Shariff Kabunsuan.
Several of those parties whose legal rights have been affected by the Court's decision to void Shariff Kabunsuan are now before this Court by way of motions for intervention. Sadly, the majority has opted once again not afford said parties their full day in court, notwithstanding the drastic impact the earlier ruling has had on them. Notably, many of these parties argue that they have been deprived due process of law under the Court's first ruling. Any doubt that these parties were denied due process has been unfortunately resolved with the perfunctory denial of their motions through the present Resolution.
Among these intervenors are the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan itself, the Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association and Datu Tocao O. Mastura, a candidate for the office of Provincial Governor of Shariff Kabunsuan. The association of provincial employees of Shariff Kabunsuan manifest that the decision would cause "the impending displacement and serious economic dislocation of all its members who would be rendered jobless as a consequence of the abolition of the province; some of the said members [being previously] permanent employees of the provincial government of Maguindanao who, by the creation of [Shariff Kabunsuan] transferred to the new provincial government [thereby] vacating their former positions in the province of Maguindanao."[1] That the Court's earlier decision directly leads to the abolition of numerous jobs in the provincial government of Shariff Kabunsuan should be beyond dispute.
The Province of Shariff Kabunsuan itself states before the Court that "[t]he news of abolishing the existence of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan created chaos and disorder to the Provincial Government itself which was never made a party to the electoral protest between [Sema] and [Dilangalen].[2] It asserts that since the creation of the new province, "the Provincial Government of Shariff Kabunsuan exercises governmental powers in delivering the basic services for its constituents."[3] Accordingly, "[t]he welfare of the people of the Province of Shanff Kabunsuan will be greatly affected if the harsh effects of the abolition of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan will not be lifted."[4]
Mastura on the other hand alleges prejudice to himself, he having received the highest number of votes cast for the office of provincial governor of Shariff Kabunsuan during the 14 May 2007 elections. He argues that the abolition of the province "would be tantamount to repudiating the franchise of the voters of the province," [5] and would also deprive him of office without due process of law.[6]
All these jobs, votes, legal rights and interests tied with the existence of Shariff Kabunsuan are now jeopardized without the people most directly affected by that choice of the Court having been able to fully ventilate their side to this Court. Tragically, that should not and need not have happened at all.
The rule in statutory construction is that when a statute is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional, that construction in favor of its constitutionality shall be adopted.[7] In my Separate Opinion, I had proposed an alternative means for reaffirming the power of the ARMM Regional Assembly to create provinces without offending the Constitution, by depriving such assembly the concurrent power to create legislative districts. That solution would not only have been in harmony with the Constitution, but would have also led to a harmonious result that would have met with wide acceptance in a most troubled region of the country.
I vote to grant the motions to the extent that they seek the reversal of the assailed 16 July 2008 Decision insofar as it declared unconstitutional Section 19, Article VI of Rep. Act No. 9054 and Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan.
G.R. No. 177597 - BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents.
G.R. No. 178628 - PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents.
ALI PENDINATAR, Intervenor.
RESOLUTION
The following parties filed motions for intervention and motions for reconsideration of our Decision in G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628: Province of Shanff Kabunsuan Represented by its Acting Provincial Governor Ibrahim P. Ibay (the Province), Ali Pendinatar (Pendinatar), Dalu Tucao O. Mastura (Datu JVlastura), Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association, represented by its President, Engr. Abdulrahman K. Asim (SKPEA), and Liga ng tnga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Shariff Kabunsuan Chapter, represented by its President, Datu AH Gumaga (SK Chapter). Petitioner in G.R. No. 178628, Perfecto F. Marquez, also filed a motion for reconsideration.
In our Resolution dated 5 August 2008, we granted the Motions to Intervene filed by the Province and by Pendinatar. In our Resolution dated 12 August 2008, we granted the Motions to Intervene filed by Datu Mastura and by SKPEA. Finally, in our Resolution dated 16 September 2008, we granted the Motion to Intervene filed by SK Chapter.
In his very urgent motion for consolidation dated 4 September 2008, intervenor Pendinatar prayed that G.R. Nos. 181312 (Datu Bimbo O. Sinsnat, Sr, v. Commission on Elections, The Special Provincial Board of Canvassers of Shariff Kabunsuan, and Datu Tucao O. Mastura) and 181778 (Datu Bimbo Q. Sinsuat, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, et al.) be consolidated with G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628 on the premise that there is a common question of law in all the said cases.
Acting on the Motion for Consolidation of G.R. Nos. 181312 and 181778 with G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628, this Court resolves to DENY the Motion for Consolidation, considering that the petitions were dismissed in the Decision promulgated on 16 July 2008.
Acting on the Motions for Reconsideration of G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628, this Court resolves to DENY WITH FINALITY the Motions for Reconsideration filed by intervenors Province of Shariff Kabunsuan Represented by its Acting Provincial Governor Ibrahim P. Ibay, Ali Pendinatar, Datu Tucao O. Mastura, Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association, represented by its President, Engr. Abdurrahman K. Asim, and Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Shariff Kabunsuan Chapter, represented by its President, Datu Ali Gumaga, as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in G.R. No. 178628, Perfecto F. Marquez, there being no compelling reason nor substantial argument to warrant the reversal of the questioned Decision.
The Justices who filed their respective concurring and dissenting opinions maintain their respective positions. Justice Dante O. Tinga filed a concurring and dissenting opinion to the Decision in G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628; Justices Consuelo Yiiares-Santiago, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion joined him in his concurring and dissenting opinion.
The Court further Resolved toCorona, J., on leave.
(a) DENY the Motion for Extension of Time (Fourth) to File Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration-in- Intervention filed by counsel for movant-intervenor Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, dated November 26, 2008 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General;
(b) REQUIRE the petitioner/s to SUBMIT the correct and present address of Datu Ali Gumaga, President, Shariff Kabunsuan Chapter, within five (5) days from notice hereof;
(c) DENY the Motion for Extension of Time (Second) to File Comment (on the Motion for Leave of Court to File Incorporated Very Urgent Motion for Consolidation dated September 4, 2008), dated November 19, 2008 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General; and
(d) NOTE the Comment (on the Motions for Reconsideration-in-Intervention filed by intervenors Datu Tucao Mastura, Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association and Ali Pendinatar), dated December 2, 2008 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part.
(With attached Dissenting Opinion of Justice Dante O. Tinga)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
TINGA, J.:
I reiterate my previous Separate Opinion, especially my vote to uphold the constitutionality of Section 19, Article VI of Rep. Act No. 9054. 1 wish though to cite a few points raised in the several motions for reconsideration fded against the Court's Decision dated 16 July 2008.
The parties to these petitions are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), private citizen Perfecto Marquez, and the two congressional candidates for the congressional seat of what originally was the First District of Maguindanao, namely: Bai Sandra Sema and Didagen Dilangalen. The issuance assailed in the petitions was the COMELEC Resolution maintaining the composition of the First District of Maguindanao even though some of its component municipalities now belong to the newly-created province of Shariff Kabunsuan. The validity of the law passed by the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) creating Shariff Kabunsuan was not directly attacked in the petitions. Neither was Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 9054. It is apparent that the petitions, on their face, could not have litigated the validity of the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan as an issue. Neither were there parties in these cases who could have wholeheartedly defended the interests of the province before this Court. Still, a majority opted to annul the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan, placing in jeopardy an entire milieu of legal rights and obligations established along with Shariff Kabunsuan.
Several of those parties whose legal rights have been affected by the Court's decision to void Shariff Kabunsuan are now before this Court by way of motions for intervention. Sadly, the majority has opted once again not afford said parties their full day in court, notwithstanding the drastic impact the earlier ruling has had on them. Notably, many of these parties argue that they have been deprived due process of law under the Court's first ruling. Any doubt that these parties were denied due process has been unfortunately resolved with the perfunctory denial of their motions through the present Resolution.
Among these intervenors are the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan itself, the Shariff Kabunsuan Provincial Employees Association and Datu Tocao O. Mastura, a candidate for the office of Provincial Governor of Shariff Kabunsuan. The association of provincial employees of Shariff Kabunsuan manifest that the decision would cause "the impending displacement and serious economic dislocation of all its members who would be rendered jobless as a consequence of the abolition of the province; some of the said members [being previously] permanent employees of the provincial government of Maguindanao who, by the creation of [Shariff Kabunsuan] transferred to the new provincial government [thereby] vacating their former positions in the province of Maguindanao."[1] That the Court's earlier decision directly leads to the abolition of numerous jobs in the provincial government of Shariff Kabunsuan should be beyond dispute.
The Province of Shariff Kabunsuan itself states before the Court that "[t]he news of abolishing the existence of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan created chaos and disorder to the Provincial Government itself which was never made a party to the electoral protest between [Sema] and [Dilangalen].[2] It asserts that since the creation of the new province, "the Provincial Government of Shariff Kabunsuan exercises governmental powers in delivering the basic services for its constituents."[3] Accordingly, "[t]he welfare of the people of the Province of Shanff Kabunsuan will be greatly affected if the harsh effects of the abolition of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan will not be lifted."[4]
Mastura on the other hand alleges prejudice to himself, he having received the highest number of votes cast for the office of provincial governor of Shariff Kabunsuan during the 14 May 2007 elections. He argues that the abolition of the province "would be tantamount to repudiating the franchise of the voters of the province," [5] and would also deprive him of office without due process of law.[6]
All these jobs, votes, legal rights and interests tied with the existence of Shariff Kabunsuan are now jeopardized without the people most directly affected by that choice of the Court having been able to fully ventilate their side to this Court. Tragically, that should not and need not have happened at all.
The rule in statutory construction is that when a statute is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional, that construction in favor of its constitutionality shall be adopted.[7] In my Separate Opinion, I had proposed an alternative means for reaffirming the power of the ARMM Regional Assembly to create provinces without offending the Constitution, by depriving such assembly the concurrent power to create legislative districts. That solution would not only have been in harmony with the Constitution, but would have also led to a harmonious result that would have met with wide acceptance in a most troubled region of the country.
I vote to grant the motions to the extent that they seek the reversal of the assailed 16 July 2008 Decision insofar as it declared unconstitutional Section 19, Article VI of Rep. Act No. 9054 and Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan.
Endnotes:
[1] Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention dated 30 Ju!y 2008, pp. 1-2.
[2] Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention dated 3 I July 2008. p. 2.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Intervenor-Movant Dalu Mastura's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 5.
[6] Id. at 6.
[7] AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (3rd cd., 1993), at 207-208; citing Alba v. Evangelista, 100 Pliii. 683 (1957); Maddumba v. Ozaeta, 82 Phil. 345 (1948); Benguet Exploration Inc. v. Dept. of Agriculture, G.R. No. 29534, 28 February N77, 75 SCRA 285 (1977); De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. 42591, 25 July 1983, 123 SCRA 569 (1983).
