Post

Sulu v. Medialdea

Posted
By Anonymous
5 min read
Sulu v. Medialdea

Case Title and Citation

Province of Sulu v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 242255, 243246, 243693, November 26, 2024.
Supreme Court – En Banc
Ponente: Justice Leonen

Facts

  • The Bangsamoro Organic Law, Republic Act No. 11054, created the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).
  • In the plebiscite to ratify the law, all former ARMM provinces and cities were treated as a single geographic voting unit, while the Province of Sulu voted “No.” The plebiscite results showed 1,540,017 “Yes” votes region-wide versus 198,750 “No” votes; Sulu itself recorded 137,630 “Yes” and 163,526 “No.”
  • On September 9, 2024, the Court issued a decision declaring RA 11054 unconstitutional to the extent that it included the Province of Sulu in BARMM, while holding the rest of RA 11054 not unconstitutional. The decision stated that Sulu would not be part of BARMM; the remaining provisions of RA 11054 were not unconstitutional. The decision was immediately executory.
  • On October 1, 2024, BARMM sought leave to intervene and filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration; the Office of the Solicitor General and other respondents followed with their own Partial Reconsideration motions.
  • On October 8, 2024, the Court issued a resolution requiring comments; no comments were filed. On October 8 and October 18, 2024, further motions and interventions were filed.
  • On October 18, 2024, the Court resolved to deny the Motions for Partial Reconsideration with finality. The Court reaffirmed that the Province of Sulu’s exclusion from BARMM was proper. The Court stated that the September 9, 2024 Decision is AFFIRMED and that the doctrine of operative fact applies to recognize and give legal effect to acts performed prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality. The decision is final and immediately executory.

Issues

  1. Did the assailed September 9, 2024 decision declaring the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in BARMM unconstitutional reconcile with the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article X, Section 18?
  2. Should the ARMM voting framework be interpreted as treating ARMM provinces and geographic areas as separate voting units, or as a single geographic area for plebiscite purposes?
  3. Should the Court apply the doctrine of operative fact to preserve governance and ongoing projects and allocations despite the declaration of unconstitutionality regarding Sulu’s inclusion in BARMM?

Ruling

  1. Yes — The inclusion of the Province of Sulu in BARMM violates Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, and is unconstitutional as to Sulu’s inclusion.
  2. Yes — The ARMM provinces and geographic areas are to be treated as separate voting units for purposes of plebiscite inclusion, not as a single ARMM geographic area; this aligns with constitutional text and prior interpretations.
  3. Yes — The doctrine of operative fact applies to preserve governance and the continuity of services, budgets, and projects implemented in the interim period, pending orderly resolution of the constitutional issues.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the autonomous region shall be created by votes of constituent units, and only those units voting favorably shall be included. The Court held that treating ARMM as a single geographic unit for plebiscite purposes contravenes this provision, as each province/city/geographic area must independently express its consent to join BARMM. The text and surrounding constitutional provisions (including Article X, Section 15) indicate the autonomous region shall consist of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographic areas “voting favorably” and not by a blanket aggregation of the ARMM.
  • The Court distinguished prior jurisprudence, including Sula v. COMELEC, by emphasizing that, in this case, the plebiscite’s application requires individual consent of constituent units; Sulu’s rejection in the plebiscite means it could not be included in BARMM.
  • Republic Act No. 11054 repeals Republic Act No. 6734 (ARMM Organic Act); as BARMM is a new entity, inclusion requires affirmative votes of the affected units. Sulu’s “No” vote signified its intent to remain outside BARMM, which the Court recognized as a valid expression of self-determination.
  • The doctrine of operative fact was invoked to recognize that acts performed in good faith under the Bangsamoro Organic Law, and its governance arrangements, should not be summarily nullified to avoid disruption to services and governance. The Court cited CIR v. San Roque Power Corp. to support the limited extrinsic effects of void acts that may be preserved to prevent inequity.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution: Only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in a plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region; geographic areas are not indistinguishable from the ARMM itself.
  • Article X, Section 15: Autonomous regions consist of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographic areas sharing common heritage and characteristics; voting requires affirmative consent.
  • Doctrine of operative fact: When a law or act is declared unconstitutional, acts taken under that law prior to the ruling may be preserved in order to prevent inequity and maintain continuity, subject to subsequent adjustments.

Disposition

  • The Motions for Partial Reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, BARMM, Atty. Latiph, Atty. Alamia, and Loong et al. are DENIED with finality.
  • The September 9, 2024 Decision is AFFIRMED. The inclusion of the Province of Sulu in BARMM is void; Sulu shall not be part of BARMM. The remaining provisions of RA 11054 are not unconstitutional.
  • The Court applied the doctrine of operative fact to recognize and give effect to acts performed prior to the ruling, to ensure continuity of governance and services. The Decision is FINAL AND IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring opinions noted: Justice Rosario (on official business) and Justice Singh (on official business) indicated concurrence on the final disposition.

Significance / Notes

  • Reiterates that the plebiscite-based inclusion in BARMM must reflect the will of each constituent unit, preventing a blanket inclusion of ARMM areas.
  • Affirms continuation of governance arrangements and programs where expenditures and services were implemented under the Bangsamoro Organic Law, while preserving constitutional boundaries.
  • Clarifies the interpretation of “geographic areas” under Article X, Section 18, emphasizing the autonomy and self-determination of local units within the framework of the 1987 Constitution.
  • Impacts the future political and fiscal planning for BARMM and the affected provinces, requiring careful compliance with plebiscite requirements for any expansion or modification of BARMM’s territorial composition.
Constitutional Law Election Law Judicial Review
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.