Chiongbian vs Judge Orbos

Pursuant to Art. X, sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution, Congress passed RA 6734 (Organic Act for the
ARMM), calling for a plebiscite to be held in the provinces of Basilan, Cotobato, Davao del Sur, Lanao
del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Palawan, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi,
Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur, and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General
Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga.

In the plebiscite, 4 provinces voted in favor of creating an autonomous region—Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. These provinces became the ARMM. As for those who did not vote
in favor of the Autonomous Region, RA 6734 provided that:

. . .The provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous
Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions. Provided, however, that the
President may, by administrative determination, merge the existing regions.

On Oct. 12, 1990, then President Aquino issued EO 429 "providing for the Reorganization of the
Administrative Regions in Mindanao." Under this Order:

(1) Misamis Occidental, at present part of Region X, will become part of Region IX.

(2) Oroquieta City, Tangub City and Ozamiz City, at present parts of Region X will become
parts of Region IX.

(3) South Cotobato, at present a part of Region XI, will become part of Region XII.

(4) General Santos City, at present part of Region XI, will become part of Region XII.

(5) Lanao del Norte, at present part of Region XII, will become part of Region IX.

(6) Iligan City and Marawi City, at present part of Region XII, will become part of Region IX.

Petitioners are members of Congress representing various legislative districts in South Cotobato,
Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Lanao del Norte and Zamboanga City. Their contentions are:

1. There is no law which authorizes the President to pick certain provinces and cities within the
existing regions — some of which did not even take part in the plebiscite— and restructure
them to new administrative regions.

2. The transfer of the provinces from one region to another are alterations of the existing
structures of governmental units, in other words, reorganization. Petitioners submit that while
the authority necessarily includes the authority to merge, the authority to merge does not
include the authority to reorganize.

The transfer of regional centers under EO 429 is actually a restructuring (reorganization) of

administrative regions. While this reorganization does not affect the apportionment of
congressional representatives, the same is not valid under the penultimate paragraph of Sec.
13, Art. XIX of R.A. 6734 and Ordinance appended to the 1986 Constitution apportioning the
seats of the House of Representatives of Congress of the Philippines to the different legislative
districts in provinces and cities.
As their protest went unheeded, while Inauguration Ceremonies of the New Administrative Region IX
were scheduled on January 26, 1991, petitioners brought this suit for certiorari and prohibition.

On the other hand, the petitioner in G.R. No. 96673, Immanuel Jaldon is suing in the capacity of
taxpayer and citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.

Petitioners in both cases contend that Art. XIX, §13 of R.A. No. 6734 is unconstitutional because (1) it
unduly delegates legislative power to the President by authorizing him to "merge [by administrative
determination] the existing regions" or at any rate provides no standard for the exercise of the power
delegated and (2) the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law.

In addition, petitioner in G.R. No. 96673 challenges the validity of E.O. No. 429 on the ground that the
power granted by Art. XIX, §13 to the President is only to "merge regions IX and XII" but not to
reorganize the entire administrative regions in Mindanao and certainly not to transfer the regional center
of Region IX from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.

The Solicitor General defends the reorganization as merely the exercise of a power "traditionally lodged
in the President," as held in Abbas v. Comelec, and as a mere incident of his power of general
supervision over local governments and control of executive departments, bureaus and offices
under Art. X, §16 and Art. VII, §17, respectively, of the Constitution.

He contends that there is no undue delegation of legislative power but only a grant of the power to
provide the details of legislation because Congress did not have the facility to provide for them.

The Solicitor General justifies the grant to the President of the power "to merge the existing regions" as
something fairly embraced in the title of R.A. No. 6734, to wit, "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao," because it is germane to it.

He argues that the power is not limited to the merger of those regions in which the provinces and cities
which took part in the plebiscite are located but that it extends to all regions in Mindanao as
necessitated by the establishment of the autonomous region.

Finally, he invokes P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772 which provides:

1. The President of the Philippines shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the National
Government. In exercising this authority, the President shall be guided by generally
acceptable principles of good government and responsive national government, including but
not limited to the following guidelines for a more efficient, effective, economical and
development-oriented governmental framework:

(a) More effective planning implementation, and review functions;

(b) Greater decentralization and responsiveness in decision-making process;

(c) Further minimization, if not, elimination, of duplication or overlapping of purposes, functions,

activities, and programs;

(d) Further development of as standardized as possible ministerial, sub-ministerial and corporate

organizational structures;

(e) Further development of the regionalization process; and

 (f) Further rationalization of the functions of and administrative relationships among government
entities.

For purposes of this Decree, the coverage of the continuing authority of the President to
reorganize shall be interpreted to encompass all agencies, entities, instrumentalities, and units
of the National Government, including all government owned or controlled corporations as well
as the entire range of the powers, functions, authorities, administrative relationships, acid related
aspects pertaining to these agencies, entities, instrumentalities, and units.

2 The President may, at his discretion, take the following actions:

f. Create, abolish, group, consolidate, merge, or integrate entities, agencies,

instrumentalities, and units of the National Government, as well as expand, amend,
change, or otherwise modify their powers, functions and authorities, including, with
respect to government-owned or controlled corporations, their corporate life,
capitalization, and other relevant aspects of their charters.

g. Take such other related actions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and
objectives of this Decree.

Issues:

(1) whether the power to "merge" administrative regions is legislative in character, as petitioners
contend, or whether it is executive in character, as respondents claim it is, and, in any event,
whether Art. XIX, §13 is invalid because it contains no standard to guide the President's
discretion;

(2) whether the power given is fairly expressed in the title of the statute; and

(3) whether the power granted authorizes the reorganization even of regions the provinces and
cities in which either did not take part in the plebiscite on the creation of the Autonomous Region
or did not vote in favor of it; and

(4) whether the power granted to the President includes the power to transfer the regional center of
Region IX from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.

Ruling:

It will be useful to recall first the nature of administrative regions and the basis and purpose for
their creation. In 1968, R.A. No. 5435 was passed "authorizing the President of the Philippines, with
the help of a Commission on Reorganization, to reorganize the different executive departments,
bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including banking or financial
institutions and corporations owned or controlled by it."

The purpose was to promote "simplicity, economy and efficiency in the government." Accordingly, the
Reorganization Commission prepared an Integrated Reorganization Plan which divided the country into
11 administrative regions. By P.D. No. 1, the Plan was approved and made part of the law of the land
on Sept. 1972.

Thus the creation and subsequent reorganization of administrative regions have been done by the
President pursuant to authority granted to him by law. In conferring on the President the power "to
merge by administrative determination the existing regions", Congress merely followed the pattern set
in previous legislation dating back to the initial organization of administrative regions in 1972.

The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the division of the country into regions is
intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but also the direction of
executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices.

As this Court observed in Abbas, "while the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly
provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President
to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments”. The regions
themselves are not territorial and political divisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays
but are "mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes." The power conferred on
the President is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described in Pelaez
v. Auditor General or as "administrative in nature."

There is, therefore, no abdication by Congress of its legislative power in conferring on the President
the power to merge administrative regions. The question is whether Congress has provided a sufficient
standard by which the President is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted and whether in
any event the grant of power to him is included in the subject expressed in the title of the law.

Question of standard:

A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. With respect to the
power to merge existing administrative regions, the standard is to be found in the same policy
underlying the grant to the President in R.A. No. 5435 of the power to reorganize the Executive
Department, to wit: "to promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in the government to enable it
to pursue programs consistent with national goals for accelerated social and economic development
and to improve the service in the transaction of the public business."

Indeed, as the original eleven administrative regions were established in accordance with this policy, it
is logical to suppose that in authorizing the President to "merge [by administrative determination] the
existing regions" in view of the withdrawal from some of those regions of the provinces now constituting
the Autonomous Region, the purpose of Congress was to reconstitute the original basis for the
organization of administrative regions.

Subject not embraced in Title of RA 6734?

The constitutional requirement that "every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof" 13 has always been given a practical rather than a
technical construction. The title is not required to be an index of the content of the bill. It is a sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all
provisions of the statute are germane to that subject. Certainly the reorganization of the remaining
administrative regions is germane to the general subject of R.A. No. 6734, which is the establishment
of the ARMM.

Power granted to President is limited to reorganization of administrative regions in which some of the
provinces and cities which voted in favor of regional autonomy are found, because Art. XIX, §13
provides that those which did not vote for autonomy "shall remain in the existing administrative
regions" ?

While Art. XIX, §13 provides that "The provinces and cities which do not vote for inclusion in the
Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions," this provision is subject to
the qualification that "the President may by administrative determination merge the existing regions."
This means that while non-assenting provinces and cities are to remain in the regions as designated
upon the creation of the Autonomous Region, they may nevertheless be regrouped with contiguous
provinces forming other regions as the exigency of administration may require.

The regrouping is done only on paper. It involves no more than are definition or redrawing of the lines
separating administrative regions for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of local
government units by the President and insuring the efficient delivery of essential services. There will
be no "transfer" of local governments from one region to another except as they may thus be
regrouped so that a province like Lanao del Norte, which is at present part of Region XII, will become
part of Region IX.

The regrouping of contiguous provinces is not even analogous to a redistricting or to the division or
merger of local governments, which all have political consequences on the right of people residing in
those political units to vote and to be voted for. It cannot be overemphasized that administrative regions
are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes, not for political
representation.

Only those regions, in which the provinces and cities which voted for inclusion in the Autonomous
Region are located, can be "merged" by the President?

To be fundamental reason Art. XIX, §13 is not so limited. But the more fundamental reason is that the
President's power cannot be so limited without neglecting the necessities of administration. It is
noteworthy that the petitioners do not claim that the reorganization of the regions in E.O. No. 429 is
irrational. The fact is that, as they themselves admit, the reorganization of administrative regions in
E.O. No. 429 is based on relevant criteria, to wit: (1) contiguity and geographical features; (2)
transportation and communication facilities; (3) cultural and language groupings; (4) land area and
population; (5) existing regional centers adopted by several agencies; (6) socio-economic development
programs in the regions and (7) number of provinces and cities.

Change of regional center from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City should be by act of Congress?

Petitioners contend that the determination of provincial capitals has always been by act of Congress.
But as, this Court said in Abbas, administrative regions are mere "groupings of contiguous provinces
for administrative purposes, They are not territorial and political subdivisions like provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays." There is, therefore, no basis for contending that only Congress can
change or determine regional centers. To the contrary, the examples of P.D. Nos. 1, 742, 773 and 1555
suggest that the power to reorganize administrative regions carries with it the power to determine the
regional center.

It may be that the transfer of the regional center to Pagadian City may entail the expenditure of large
sums of money for the construction of buildings and other infrastructure to house regional offices. That
contention is addressed to the wisdom of the transfer rather than to its legality and it is settled that
courts are not the arbiters of the wisdom or expediency of legislation.