G.R. No. 196271 , 196305, 197221, 197280, 197282, 197392, 197454; February 28, 2012
DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, et al.; BASARI D. MAPUPUNO; REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN; ALMARIM CENTI TILLAH, et al.; ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL; LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO; JACINTO V. PARAS, Petitioners, vs. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

This is a consolidated Resolution on various motions for reconsideration assailing the Court’s Decision dated October 18, 2011. The Decision upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 10153. This law postponed the August 2011 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to May 2013 to synchronize them with the national and local elections. It also authorized the President to appoint Officers-in-Charge (OICs) to assume the positions upon the expiration of the terms of the elected ARMM officials.
The petitioners, in their motions for reconsideration, raised several grounds challenging the constitutionality of RA 10153 and the Court’s prior rulings. Their arguments centered on the unique status of the ARMM, the constitutionality of the President’s power to appoint OICs to elective regional positions, the validity of amending the ARMM Organic Act (RA 9054) without a supermajority vote or a plebiscite, the alleged error in disallowing holdover for incumbent officials, and the claim that synchronization is not constitutionally mandated for ARMM elections.

ISSUE

The core issue for resolution is whether the motions for reconsideration present compelling grounds to reverse the Court’s October 18, 2011 Decision, which declared RA 10153 constitutional.

RULING

The Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration and AFFIRMED its Decision dated October 18, 2011 in toto. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from its earlier rulings.
The Court reiterated and expounded on the key points from its Decision:
1. ARMM Elections as Local Elections: The ARMM, despite its autonomous status, remains an integral part of the Philippine territory and its regional officials are considered local officials. The constitutional mandate for synchronization of elections under Section 2, Article X applies to all local government units, including the ARMM.
2. Constitutionality of RA 10153 and Amendment of RA 9054: RA 10153 is a valid exercise of legislative power. The provisions in RA 9054 requiring a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress and a plebiscite for its amendment or revision were declared unconstitutional. These requirements unduly expanded the Constitution’s provisions (Section 18, Article X) and violated the principle that one Congress cannot bind a future Congress by prescribing a voting requirement higher than that mandated by the Constitution itself.
3. Power to Appoint OICs: The President’s power to appoint OICs is constitutionally sound. It is an interim measure necessitated by the postponement of elections and the prohibition against holdover. This power is derived from the President’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and is consistent with the supervisory authority over autonomous regions.
4. No Holdover for Incumbent Officials: The Court affirmed its ruling that incumbent ARMM officials cannot hold over. The principle from Osmeña v. Comelec applies: an official whose term is fixed by statute cannot continue in office beyond that term unless the statute expressly provides for holdover. RA 9054’s holdover provision (Section 7, Article VII) was correctly interpreted as applicable only to the first set of officials under the transitory provisions, not to subsequent officials.
5. Synchronization is Mandatory: The Court reaffirmed that synchronizing the ARMM elections with the national and local elections is a constitutional imperative under Section 2, Article X of the Constitution .
6. No Need for Special Elections: With the lawful postponement of the August 2011 elections and the valid appointment of OICs to ensure continuity of government, there is no constitutional basis to compel the Commission on Elections to hold special elections.
The Court also addressed a procedural matter regarding a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). It clarified that the TRO issued in a related case (Sema v. Comelec) had already been dissolved upon the finality of the decision in that case. Furthermore, the issues raised in the motions for reconsideration were thoroughly deliberated upon, and the voting requirement for the denial of the motions was satisfied by a majority of the Members of the Court who actually took part in the deliberations and voted thereon.