Datu Michael Abas Kida vs Senate of the Philippines

GR No. 196271
October 18, 2011

FACTS:

On June 30, 2011, Republic Act (RA) No. 10153, entitled “An Act Providing for the Synchronization of the Elections in
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with the National and Local Elections and for Other
Purposes” was enacted, resetting the next ARMM regular elections to May 2013 to coincide with the regular national
and local elections of the country.
The history of ARMM instituted first by the provisions of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, mandated the creation of
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras specifically Sections 15 to 22 wherein the congress
promulgated the Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 which is the organic act that established the ARMM and scheduled the
first regular elections for the ARMM regional officials. Following aforementioned article is the RA No. 9054 which
amended the ARMM Charter and reset the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to the second Monday of
September 2001. RA No. 9140 further reset the first regular elections to November 26, 2001. RA No. 9333 reset for
the third time the ARMM regional elections to the 2nd Monday of August 2005 and on the same date every 3 years
thereafter.
Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been held on August 8, 2011. COMELEC
had begun preparations for these elections and had accepted certificates of candidacies for the various regional offices
to be elected.
In these consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed directly with the Supreme Court, the
petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA No. 10153.

ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections.
2.Whether or not the passage of RA No. 10153 violates Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and UPHELD the constitutionality of RA No. 10153 in toto.

1.YES, the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections.

While the Constitution does not expressly state that Congress has to synchronize national and local elections, the clear
intent towards this objective can be gleaned from the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution, which
show the extent to which the Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making adjustments to the terms of the
incumbent officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections. The Constitutional Commission exchanges, read with
the provisions of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution, all serve as patent indicators of the constitutional
mandate to hold synchronized national and local elections, starting the second Monday of May 1992 and for all the
following elections.

2. NO, the passage of RA No. 10153 DOES NOT violate Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which refers
to the three-readings-on-separate-days requirement.

In the present case, the records show that the President wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to
certify the necessity of the immediate enactment of a law synchronizing the ARMM elections with the national and local
elections. Following the Tolentino ruling, the Supreme Court held the President’s certification exempted both the House
and the Senate from having to comply with the three separate readings requirement.