TL;DR

The Supreme Court definitively ruled that the Province of Sulu cannot be included in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) because Sulu voters rejected the Bangsamoro Organic Law in a plebiscite. This decision underscores that each province and city within the former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) had the right to individually decide whether to join BARMM, and the collective ARMM vote could not override Sulu’s choice. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to local autonomy and self-determination, ensuring that no local government unit is incorporated into an autonomous region against its expressed will.

The Sulu Stand: Self-Determination Prevails Over Regional Integration

This case revolves around the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL), particularly concerning the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in the newly formed BARMM. The core legal question is whether the collective vote of the former ARMM provinces could supersede the dissenting vote of an individual province, specifically Sulu, in the plebiscite for BARMM’s creation. Petitioners argued that Sulu, having voted against the BOL, should not be part of BARMM, emphasizing the constitutional mandate that only areas voting favorably should be included. Respondents, including the Bangsamoro Transition Commission and the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that the ARMM should be treated as a single geographic unit for voting purposes, and the overall ‘yes’ vote in ARMM should prevail. The Supreme Court, in its original decision and now in this resolution denying reconsideration, sided with Sulu, firmly establishing the principle of local autonomy in the context of autonomous region formation.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly states that “only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.” The Court clarified that the term “geographic areas” in this context does not refer to the entire ARMM as a single unit, but rather to smaller areas not classified as provinces, cities, or municipalities, such as barangays with shared characteristics. This interpretation aligns with the intent of the framers of the Constitution, who emphasized the right of individual provinces to express their desire to join or not join an autonomous region. Commissioner Jose Bengzon’s statements during the Constitutional Commission deliberations highlighted the importance of allowing each province to “express in black and white their desire not to join the autonomous region.”

The Court rejected the argument that treating ARMM as a single voting unit was constitutionally permissible. It underscored that each province within ARMM possesses local autonomy, a right that cannot be overridden by a collective regional vote. To treat ARMM as one entity would effectively disenfranchise the constituents of individual provinces like Sulu, undermining their right to self-determination. The decision explicitly states, “The Province of Sulu, as a political subdivision under the ARMM, did not lose its character as such and as a unit that was granted local autonomy.” The Court emphasized that the plebiscite’s purpose is to ascertain the will of the people in each constituent unit, and Sulu’s ‘no’ vote was a clear expression of its will to remain outside BARMM.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that the previous case, Sula v. COMELEC, supported treating ARMM as a single voting unit. The Court clarified that Sula dealt with the validity of plebiscite questions, not the issue of whether ARMM provinces should vote as one. In fact, the Court argued that Sula implicitly supports the current ruling by distinguishing between areas within ARMM and contiguous areas outside ARMM in terms of plebiscite voting. The Court stated, “A political unit cannot ratify the Bangsamoro Organic Law and decide not to join BARMM. Similarly, a unit cannot refuse to ratify and still opt to join the region.” Sulu’s rejection of the BOL was thus deemed a rejection of inclusion in BARMM.

Acknowledging the practical implications of its ruling, the Court invoked the doctrine of operative fact. This doctrine recognizes that actions taken under the presumption of the BOL’s full validity, including Sulu’s inclusion in BARMM prior to the Court’s decision, should not be summarily nullified. The Court directed that decisions, policies, and actions taken during this period be addressed in a manner that respects their impacts on governance, finance, and administration in Sulu, ensuring a smooth transition and minimizing disruption to public services. The Court’s final resolution denied all Motions for Partial Reconsideration and affirmed the original decision, making it immediately executory and final.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Province of Sulu v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 242255, November 26, 2024