III.

JUDICIAL ELABORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION – CONSTRUCTION

CASE: Datu Michael Abas Kida Vs. Senate ( 2011)

FACTS:

● The petitioners assail RA 9140, RA 9333 and RA 10153. The petitioner asserts that these laws
amend RA 9054.
● They contend that the amendments should first comply with the super majority vote and
plebiscite requirements prescribed under Section 1, Article 17 of RA 9054 for the amendments
to become effective. Since they did not follow this requirement, then these laws have no force
and affect.
● Section 1, Article 17 of this RA 9054 – provides that the organic act of ARMM may only be
amended or revised by congress upon 2/3 votes of members of each house (Senate and House
of Representatives). It also requires plebiscite for amendments. Thus, it requires both houses.
Issue:

WON supermajority voting and plebiscite requirement to amend an act in ARMM needs to be complied.
NO.

Held:

● Even assuming that these laws in fact amend RA 9054, the supermajority requirement by EACH
house shall be struck down for giving RA 9054 the character of an irrepealable law by requiring
more than what the constitution demands. This is frowned upon since it constricts the future
legislators room for action and flexibility.
● Section 16, Article 6 of the constitution only provides that a majority of each house shall
constitute a quorum to do business. Thus, as long as majority of the members of the House of
Representatives OR the Senate is present, these bodies can already have quorum. A vote of
majority is generally sufficient to enact laws or approve acts. It do not require SUPER majority.
● FURTHERMORE, Section 3, Article 17 of RA 9054 excessively enlarged the plebiscite requirement
found in Section 18, Article 10 of the constitution. Thus, it violates the constitution.
● Constitution plainly states that “the creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when
approved by the majority of the votes by the constituents units in a plebiscite called for this
purpose.”
● With these wordings as standard, we interpret/ construe that the requirement of plebiscite only
refers to amendments or revisions of the organic act relating to the creation of autonomous
regions.
● Thus, the date of ARMM elections does not fall under any of the matters that need plebiscite as
provided in the constitution. Therefore, even assuming the super majority and plebiscite
 requirements are valid, change in the date of elections cannot be construed as a substantial
amendment to the organic act that will require super majority and plebiscite. The consti
provision is clear and must be taken as it is.
Another Issue:

WON option 3 which is to grant the president the power to appoint OICs in the ARMM is constitutional.
Yes.

Held:

● The court identified 3 options to congress how to resolve the problem on who should sit as
ARMM officials in the interim in order to achieve synchronization in the 2013 elections.
● Option 1: Holdover is unconstitutional as it would extend the term of incumbent ARMM
officials.
● Option 2: Calling special election is unconstitutional since COMELEC, on its own, cannot order
special elections.
● Option 3: Appointing of OICs by the president is constitutional. Section 16, Article 7 of the
constitution provides that “ those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint.”
● President authority to appoint emanates from RA 10153. It falls under the 3rd group of officials
that the president can appoint.
● On the challenges posed by this option such as the assertion that consti requires ARMM officials
to be elective and representative of the constituents, the court held that RA 10153 should be
read in the manner it was written and based on its unambiguous facial terms. RA 10153 does
not change the elective and representative character of ARMM positions. It only appoints OIC
for the office of Gov, Vice Gov and members of the regional legislative assembly who shall
perform duties only until the officials elected in the May 2013 shall have qualified and assumed
office. It is purely and simply interim in measure.