GR 79956; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 79956 & G.R. No. 82217; January 29, 1990
CORDILLERA BROAD COALITION, et al., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The petitions assail the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 220, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 15, 1987, which created the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR). Petitioners argue that the EO pre-empts the congressional mandate under the 1987 Constitution to enact an organic act for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Cordilleras, which is to be ratified by a plebiscite. The CAR was established to cover the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, and Mountain Province, and the City of Baguio. Its stated purposes were to accelerate socio-economic development and to prepare for the eventual autonomous region. The issuance of EO 220 stemmed from a peace agreement following the 1986 EDSA Revolution, where the government and the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army agreed to pursue Cordillera demands through political negotiation, including the creation of a preparatory body.
ISSUE
Whether Executive Order No. 220 is unconstitutional for allegedly pre-empting the congressional power to create an autonomous region in the Cordilleras through an organic act and plebiscite.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 220. The Court clarified that the creation of the CAR and the constitutional mandate for an autonomous region are distinct and not mutually exclusive. The Constitution requires Congress to pass an organic act, whose effectivity is contingent on a plebiscite. EO 220, issued under the President’s transitional legislative power, did not establish an autonomous region but created a temporary administrative agency. The CAR’s functions were merely coordinative and preparatory, aimed at facilitating development and planning for future autonomy. It did not confer political autonomy or diminish existing local government autonomy. The Court emphasized that the CAR was a transitory measure to fill the gap until the constitutional process for autonomy was completed, and petitioners failed to demonstrate any actual diminution of local autonomy. The EO was a valid exercise of presidential power intended to promote peace and development, not to usurp congressional authority.