Scribd
Upload
265 views2 pages

Navarro v. Exec Sec (RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA)

The Supreme Court ruled that the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 is valid. This provision exempts provinces consisting of two or more islands from the minimum land area requirement for creating a new province. The Court found that Congress acted within its legislative powers in creating Dinagat Islands as a new province through Republic Act No. 9355, even though Dinagat had a land area smaller than the minimum normally required, because it consists of multiple islands. The Court also noted that Dinagat had sufficient average annual income and capacity to deliver basic services as a province.

Uploaded by

michiko
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
265 views2 pages

Navarro v. Exec Sec (RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA)

The Supreme Court ruled that the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 is valid. This provision exempts provinces consisting of two or more islands from the minimum land area requirement for creating a new province. The Court found that Congress acted within its legislative powers in creating Dinagat Islands as a new province through Republic Act No. 9355, even though Dinagat had a land area smaller than the minimum normally required, because it consists of multiple islands. The Court also noted that Dinagat had sufficient average annual income and capacity to deliver basic services as a province.

Uploaded by

michiko
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Navarro v.

Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 180050; April 12, 2011
NACHURA, J.:

DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION (RATIO LEGIS ET ANIMA)

FACTS:

On October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved into law Republic Act No. 9355 or the
Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands. On December 3, 2006, the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) conducted the mandatory plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the province
under the Local Government Code (LGC). The plebiscite yielded more affirmative votes than negative
votes (69,943 = affirmative votes, 63,502 = negative votes). With the approval of the people from both
the mother of province of Surigao del Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands.
On November 10, 2006, petitioners filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition
challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355. The Court dismissed the petition on technical
grounds. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. Undaunted, petitioners filed another
petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the R.A. No. 9355 for being unconstitutional. They alleged that
the creation of Dinagat as a new province, if uncorrected, would perpetuate an illegal act of
Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the
provincial territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich resources from the area. They pointed
out that when the law was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 sq. km. only and a population
of only 106,951, failing to comply with Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of Section 461 of
the LGC.
On May 12, 2010, movants-inventors raised three (3) main arguments to challenge the above
Resolution, namely: (1) that the passage of R.A. No. 9355 operates as an act of Congress amending
Section 461 of the LGC; (2) that the exemption from territorial contiguity, when the intended province
consists of two or more islands, includes the exemption from the application of the minimum land
area requirement; and (3) that the Operative Fact Doctrine is applicable in the instant case. On July
20, 2010, the Court denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors’
Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010 on the ground that the allowance or
disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and that the
appropriate time to file the said motion was before and not after the resolution of this case.
On September 7, 2010, movants-intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 20, 2010
Resolution, citing several rulings of the Court, allowing intervention as an exception to Section 2, Rule
19 of the Rules of Court that it should be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment. They
alleged that, prior to the May 10, 2010 elections, their legal interest in this case was not yet existent.
They averred that prior to the May 10, 2010 elections, they were unaware of the proceedings in this
case.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991 is valid.

RULING:

YES. The Congress recognizing the capacity and viability of Dinagat to become a full-fledged
province, enacted R.A. No. 9355, following the exemption from the land area requirement, which, with
respect to the creation of provinces, can only be found as an express provision in the LGC-IRR. In
effect, pursuant to its plenary legislative powers, Congress breathed flesh and blood into that
exemption in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR and transformed it into law when it enacted R.A. No. 9355
creating the Island Province of Dinagat.
The land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit, is not
conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average annual
income of P82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local Government
Finance, which is four times more than the minimum requirement of P20,000,000.00 for the creation
of a province. The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and
sustainable. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010 elections as
mere fait accompli circumstances which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat’s existence as a province,
they must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province.
This Court should not be instrumental in stunting such capacity. As it was held in the case of League
of Cities of the Philippines v. Comission on Elections –
Ratio legis est anima. The spirit rather than the letter of the law. A statute must be read according to
its spirit or intent, for what is within the spirit is within the statute although it is not within its letter, and
that which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Put a bit differently, that
which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter, and that
which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the
lawmakers. Withal, courts ought not to interpret and should not accept an interpretation that would
defeat the intent of the law and its legislators.
So as it is exhorted to pass on a challenge against the validity of an act of Congress, a co-equal
branch of government, it behooves the Court to have at once one principle in mind: the presumption
of constitutionality of statutes. This presumption finds its roots in the tri-partite system of government
and the corollary separation of powers, which enjoins the three great departments of the government
to accord a becoming courtesy for each other’s acts, and not to interfere inordinately with the exercise
by one of its official functions. Towards this end, courts ought to reject assaults against the validity of
statutes, barring of course their clear unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain, the theory in context
being that the law is the product of earnest studies by Congress to ensure that no constitutional
prescription or concept is infringed. Consequently, before a law duly challenged is nullified, an
unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with, the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the
Court.

You might also like