GR 180050; (May, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180050 May 12, 2010
RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL, and RENE O. MEDINA, Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners sought the declaration of unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355 , which created the Province of Dinagat Islands from Surigao del Norte. The Court initially granted the petition, ruling that the law failed to comply with the population and land area requirements under Section 461 of the Local Government Code (LGC). The population of Dinagat Islands, as officially certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO), was only 120,813, far below the statutory minimum of 250,000 inhabitants. Its land area was only 802.12 square kilometers, below the required 2,000 square kilometers. Respondents, in their Motions for Reconsideration, argued compliance by invoking an exemption in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which states that the land area requirement “shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.”
ISSUE
Whether Republic Act No. 9355 is constitutional despite non-compliance with the population and land area requirements prescribed in the Local Government Code.
RULING
The Motions for Reconsideration are denied. R.A. No. 9355 remains unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed that the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands did not satisfy the mandatory criteria in Section 461 of the LGC. The official NSO-certified population was indisputably below the 250,000 threshold. Regarding land area, the exemption cited by respondents is found only in the IRR, not in the LGC itself. The Court held that the IRR, being merely a subordinate regulation, cannot validly create a substantive exemption not provided for by the statute it seeks to implement. Where the basic law (the LGC) explicitly requires a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers, the implementing rules cannot dispense with that requirement. The principle that the law prevails over its implementing rules is controlling. Since the enabling statute failed to meet both the population requirement and the land area requirement (with no valid exemption), it was constitutionally infirm. The subsequent plebiscite and election of officials, while operative facts, do not cure this inherent constitutional defect in the law’s enactment.