Limbona vs Mangelin

Facts:

 In 1986, Petitioner Limbona was appointed as a member of the Sangguniang Pampook, Regional
Autonomous Government. Region VII, representing Lanao del Sur and a year after elected as
Speaker of the Regional Legislative Assembly or Batasang Pampook of Central Mindanao.
 Said Assembly is composed of 18 members. Two of said members, respondents Tomawis and
Dagalangit, filed with the COMELEC their respective certificates of candidacy in the May 11,
1987 congressional elections for the district of Lanao del Sur but they later withdrew from the
aforesaid election and thereafter resumed again their positions as members of the Assembly.
 On the other hand, Congressman Datu Matalam, invited Mr. Razul, Pampook Speaker of Region
XI, Zamboanga City and the petitioner in his capacity as Speaker of the Assembly, Region XII
 Petitioner sent a telegram to Acting Secretary Alimbuyao of the Assembly that there shall be no
session in November and in compliance the secretary sent the telegram to all assemblymen
 However, the assembly held two sessions despite the telegram where the petitioner was unseated
from his position.
 Petitioner prays that that the session's proceedings be declared null and void and be it declared
that he was still the Speaker of the Assembly.
 Pending further proceedings of the case, the SC received a resolution from the Assembly
expressly expelling petitioner's membership therefrom.
 Respondents argue that petitioner had "filed a case before the Supreme Court against some
members of the Assembly on a question which should have been resolved within the confines of
the Assembly," for which the respondents now submit that the petition had become "moot and
academic" because of its resolution.

Issue:

 Whether or not the expulsion of the petitioner (pending litigation) has made the case moot and
academic.
 What is the extent of self-government given to the two autonomous governments of Region 9 and
12?

Ruling:

 No. The expulsion of the petitioner (pending litigation) has NOT made the case moot and
academic because expulsion resolution that was issued.
If the expulsion was done purposely to make the petition moot and academic, it will not make it
academic. On the ground of due process, the Court hold that the expulsion is without force and
effect. Thus, the Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner.
 The autonomous governments of Mindanao were organized in Regions 9 and 12 by Presidential
Decree No. 1618.
In relation to the central government, the Presidential Decree provides that “the President shall have
the power of general supervision and control over the Autonomous Regions...”
Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power.
There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers
to political subdivisions .The president exercises “general supervision” over them, but only to “ensure that
local affairs are administered according to law.” He has not control over their acts in the sense that he can
substitute their judgments with his own.
Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favor of
local government units declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to
chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities.
The SC believe that they were never meant to exercise autonomy through decentralization of power.
Thus, the SC assumes jurisdiction.

 Upon the facts presented, the Court finds two sessions held on November to be invalid.
Wherefore, the petition is granted. The petitioner is reinstated as Member and speaker of the
Sanggunian.