EN BANC

[G.R. No. 177597. July 16, 2008.]

BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA,  petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DIDAGEN P.

[G.R. No. 178628. July 16, 2008.]

PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ,  petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J  p:

The Case
These consolidated petitions 1 seek to annul Resolution No. 7902, dated 10 May 2007, of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) treating Cotabato City as part of the legislative district of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. 2
The Facts
The Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution apportioned two legislative districts for the Province of
Maguindanao. The first legislative district consists of Cotabato City and eight municipalities. 3 Maguindanao forms part of the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), created under its Organic Act, Republic Act No. 6734 (R.A. 6734), as
amended by Republic Act No. 9054 (R.A. 9054). 4 Although under the Ordinance, Cotabato City forms part of Maguindanao's
first legislative district, it is not part of the ARMM but of Region XII, having voted against its inclusion in the ARMM in the
plebiscite held in November 1989. SDECAI
On 28 August 2006, the ARMM's legislature, the ARMM Regional Assembly, exercising its power to create provinces
under Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054, 5 enacted Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA Act 201) creating the
Province of Shariff Kabunsuan composed of the eight municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao. MMA Act 201
provides:
Section 1. The Municipalities of Barira, Buldon, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan, Matanog, Parang,
Sultan Kudarat, Sultan Mastura, and Upi are hereby separated from the Province of Maguindanao and
constituted into a distinct and independent province, which is hereby created, to be known as the Province of
Shariff Kabunsuan. TESICD
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 5. The corporate existence of this province shall commence upon the appointment by the Regional
Governor or election of the governor and majority of the regular members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
The incumbent elective provincial officials of the Province of Maguindanao shall continue to serve their
unexpired terms in the province that they will choose or where they are residents: Provided, that where an
elective position in both provinces becomes vacant as a consequence of the creation of the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan, all incumbent elective provincial officials shall have preference for appointment to a higher elective
vacant position and for the time being be appointed by the Regional Governor, and shall hold office until their
successors shall have been elected and qualified in the next local elections; Provided, further, that they shall
continue to receive the salaries they are receiving at the time of the approval of this Act until the new
readjustment of salaries in accordance with law. Provided, furthermore, that there shall be no diminution in the
number of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the mother province. acSECT
Except as may be provided by national law, the existing legislative district, which includes Cotabato as
a part thereof, shall remain.
Later, three new municipalities 6 were carved out of the original nine municipalities constituting Shariff Kabunsuan, bringing its
total number of municipalities to 11. Thus, what was left of Maguindanao were the municipalities constituting its second
legislative district. Cotabato City, although part of Maguindanao's first legislative district, is not part of the Province of
Maguindanao. ICDSca
The voters of Maguindanao ratified Shariff Kabunsuan's creation in a plebiscite held on 29 October 2006.
On 6 February 2007, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotabato City passed Resolution No. 3999 requesting the
COMELEC to "clarify the status of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the First District of Maguindanao into a regular
province" under MMA Act 201. CHIEDS
In answer to Cotabato City's query, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 07-0407 on 6 March 2007 "maintaining the
status  quo with Cotabato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative District of Maguindanao". Resolution No.
07-0407, which adopted the recommendation of the COMELEC's Law Department under a Memorandum dated 27 February
2007, 7 provides in pertinent parts:
Considering the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves, to adopt the
recommendation of the Law Department that pending the enactment of the appropriate law by Congress, to
maintain the status quo with Cotabato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative District of
Maguindanao. (Emphasis supplied) aScIAC
However, in preparation for the 14 May 2007 elections, the COMELEC promulgated on 29 March 2007 Resolution No.
7845 stating that Maguindanao's first legislative district is composed only of Cotabato City because of the enactment of MMA
Act 201. 8
On 10 May 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7902, subject of these petitions, amending Resolution No. 07-
0407 by renaming the legislative district in question as "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City (formerly First District
of Maguindanao with Cotabato City)." 9
In G.R. No. 177597, Sema, who was a candidate in the 14 May 2007 elections for Representative of "Shariff
Kabunsuan with Cotabato City", prayed for the nullification of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 and the exclusion from
canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City for that office. Sema contended that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one
representative in Congress under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution 10 and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
the Constitution. 11 Thus, Sema asserted that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing
Resolution No. 7902 which maintained the status quo in Maguindanao's first legislative district despite the COMELEC's earlier
directive in Resolution No. 7845 designating Cotabato City as the lone component of Maguindanao's reapportioned first
legislative district. 12 Sema further claimed that in issuing Resolution No. 7902, the COMELEC usurped Congress' power to
create or reapportion legislative districts. CHDAaS
In its Comment, the COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), chose not to reach the merits of the
case and merely contended that (1) Sema wrongly availed of the writ of certiorari to nullify COMELEC Resolution No. 7902
because the COMELEC issued the same in the exercise of its administrative, not quasi-judicial, power and (2) Sema's prayer
for the writ of prohibition in G.R. No. 177597 became moot with the proclamation of respondent Didagen P. Dilangalen
(respondent Dilangalen) on 1 June 2007 as representative of the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with
Cotabato City.
In his Comment, respondent Dilangalen countered that Sema is estopped from questioning COMELEC Resolution
No. 7902 because in her certificate of candidacy filed on 29 March 2007, Sema indicated that she was seeking election as
representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan including Cotabato City". Respondent Dilangalen added that COMELEC Resolution No.
7902 is constitutional because it did not apportion a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan or reapportion the legislative
districts in Maguindanao but merely renamed Maguindanao's first legislative district. Respondent Dilangalen further claimed
that the COMELEC could not reapportion Maguindanao's first legislative district to make Cotabato City its sole component unit
as the power to reapportion legislative districts lies exclusively with Congress, not to mention that Cotabato City does not meet
the minimum population requirement under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for the creation of a legislative district
within a city. 13
Sema filed a Consolidated Reply controverting the matters raised in respondents' Comments and reiterating her claim
that the COMELEC acted ultra vires in issuing Resolution No. 7902. HAaScT
In the Resolution of 4 September 2007, the Court required the parties in G.R. No.  177597 to comment on the issue of
whether a province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is entitled to one
representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new
province. The parties submitted their compliance as follows:
(1) Sema answered the issue in the affirmative on the following grounds: (a) the Court in  Felwa v. Salas 14 stated
that "when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district comes into existence neither by authority
of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by operation of the  Constitution, without a
reapportionment;" (b) Section 462 of Republic Act No. 7160 (R.A. 7160) "affirms" the apportionment of a legislative district
incident to the creation of a province; and (c) Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution mandate the apportionment of a legislative district in newly created provinces. aSDHCT
 (2) The COMELEC, again represented by the OSG, apparently abandoned its earlier stance on the propriety of
issuing Resolution Nos. 07-0407 and 7902 and joined causes with Sema, contending that Section 5 (3), Article VI of
the Constitution is "self-executing". Thus, every new province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly is ipso facto entitled
to one representative in the House of Representatives even in the absence of a national law; and
(3) Respondent Dilangalen answered the issue in the negative on the following grounds: (a) the "province"
contemplated in Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution is one that is created by an act of Congress taking into account the
provisions in R.A. 7160 on the creation of provinces; (b) Section 3, Article IV of R.A. 9054 withheld from the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to enact measures relating to national elections, which encompasses the apportionment of legislative
districts for members of the House of Representatives; (c) recognizing a legislative district in every province the ARMM
Regional Assembly creates will lead to the disproportionate representation of the ARMM in the House of Representatives as
the Regional Assembly can create provinces without regard to the requirements in Section 461 of R.A. 7160; and (d) Cotabato
City, which has a population of less than 250,000, is not entitled to a representative in the House of Representatives. TcaAID
On 27 November 2007, the Court heard the parties in G.R. No. 177597 in oral arguments on the following issues: (1)
whether Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces, is
constitutional; and (2) if in the affirmative, whether a province created under Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is entitled to
one representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new
province. 15
In compliance with the Resolution dated 27 November 2007, the parties in G.R. No. 177597 filed their respective
Memoranda on the issues raised in the oral arguments. 16On the question of the constitutionality of Section 19, Article VI
of R.A. 9054, the parties in G.R. No. 177597 adopted the following positions: CITcSH
(1) Sema contended that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is constitutional (a) as a valid delegation by Congress to
the ARMM of the power to create provinces under Section 20 (9), Article X of the Constitution granting to the autonomous
regions, through their organic acts, legislative powers over "other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of
the general welfare of the people of the region" and (b) as an amendment to Section 6 of  R.A. 7160. 17 However, Sema
concedes that, if taken literally, the grant in Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power
to "prescribe standards lower than those mandated" in R.A. 7160 in the creation of provinces contravenes Section 10, Article
X of the Constitution. 18 Thus, Sema proposed that Section 19 "should be construed as prohibiting the Regional Assembly
from prescribing standards . . . that do not comply with the minimum criteria " under R.A. 7160. 19
(2) Respondent Dilangalen contended that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is unconstitutional on the following
grounds: (a) the power to create provinces was not among those granted to the autonomous regions under Section 20, Article
X of the Constitution and (b) the grant under Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power
to prescribe standards lower than those mandated in Section 461 of R.A. 7160 on the creation of provinces contravenes
Section 10, Article X of theConstitution and the Equal Protection Clause; and EHCcIT
(3) The COMELEC, through the OSG, joined causes with respondent Dilangalen (thus effectively abandoning the
position the COMELEC adopted in its Compliance with the Resolution of 4 September 2007) and contended that Section 19,
Article VI of R.A. 9054 is unconstitutional because (a) it contravenes Section 10 and Section 6, 20 Article X of
the Constitution and (b) the power to create provinces was withheld from the autonomous regions under Section 20, Article X
of the Constitution.
On the question of whether a province created under Section 19, Article VI of  R.A. 9054 is entitled to one
representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new
province, Sema and respondent Dilangalen reiterated in their Memoranda the positions they adopted in their Compliance with
the Resolution of 4 September 2007. The COMELEC deemed it unnecessary to submit its position on this issue considering
its stance that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is unconstitutional. CcTIDH
The pendency of the petition in G.R. No. 178628 was disclosed during the oral arguments on 27 November 2007.
Thus, in the Resolution of 19 February 2008, the Court ordered G.R. No. 178628 consolidated with G.R. No.  177597. The
petition in G.R. No. 178628 echoed Sema's contention that the COMELEC acted ultra vires in issuing Resolution No. 7902
depriving the voters of Cotabato City of a representative in the House of Representatives. In its Comment to the petition in
G.R. No. 178628, the COMELEC, through the OSG, maintained the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 as a
temporary measure pending the enactment by Congress of the "appropriate law".
The Issues
The petitions raise the following issues:
I. In G.R. No. 177597:
(A) Preliminarily —
(1) whether the writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus are proper to test the constitutionality of COMELEC
Resolution No. 7902; and TIHDAa
 (2) whether the proclamation of respondent Dilangalen as representative of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with
Cotabato City mooted the petition in G.R. No. 177597.
(B) On the merits —
(1) whether Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional; and cSIADa
(2) if in the affirmative, whether a province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201 pursuant to
Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is entitled to one representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national
law creating a legislative district for such province.
II. In G.R. No. 177597 and G.R. No. 178628, whether COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is valid for maintaining the
status quo in the first legislative district of Maguindanao (as "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City [formerly First
District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City]"), despite the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan out of such district
(excluding Cotabato City). DCaSHI
The Ruling of the Court
The petitions have no merit. We rule that (1) Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants
to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities; (2) MMA Act 201 creating the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan is void; and (3) COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is valid.
On the Preliminary Matters
The Writ of Prohibition is Appropriate
to Test the Constitutionality of
Election Laws, Rules and Regulations
The purpose of the writ of Certiorari is to correct grave abuse of discretion by "any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions." 21 On the other hand, the writ of Mandamus will issue to compel a tribunal, corporation,
board, officer, or person to perform an act "which the law specifically enjoins as a duty." 22 True, the COMELEC did not issue
Resolution No. 7902 in the exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial functions. 23 Nor is there a law which specifically enjoins the
COMELEC to exclude from canvassing the votes cast in Cotabato City for representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with
Cotabato City". These, however, do not justify the outright dismissal of the petition in G.R. No.  177597 because Sema also
prayed for the issuance of the writ of Prohibition and we have long recognized this writ as proper for testing the
constitutionality of election laws, rules, and regulations. 24 2005jur
Respondent Dilangalen's Proclamation
Does Not Moot the Petition
There is also no merit in the claim that respondent Dilangalen's proclamation as winner in the 14 May 2007 elections
for representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City" mooted this petition. This case does not concern
respondent Dilangalen's election. Rather, it involves an inquiry into the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, as well as
the constitutionality of MMA Act 201 and Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054. Admittedly, the outcome of this petition, one way
or another, determines whether the votes cast in Cotabato City for representative of the district of "Shariff Kabunsuan
Province with Cotabato City" will be included in the canvassing of ballots. However, this incidental consequence is no reason
for us not to proceed with the resolution of the novel issues raised here. The Court's ruling in these petitions affects not only
the recently concluded elections but also all the other succeeding elections for the office in question, as well as the power of
the ARMM Regional Assembly to create in the future additional provinces.
On the Main Issues
Whether the ARMM Regional Assembly
Can Create the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan
The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its
boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government
code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
affected. EcSCAD
Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units — province, city, municipality or barangay — must comply with
three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government Code.
Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political
units affected.
There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress to delegate
to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local government units. However, under its plenary legislative
powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable
standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to provincial
boards, and city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays within their jurisdiction,  25 subject to compliance with
the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of
the Constitution. However, under the Local Government Code, "only . . . an Act of Congress" can create provinces, cities or
municipalities. 26EIaDHS
Under Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054, Congress delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays within the ARMM. Congress made the delegation under its plenary legislative
powers because the power to create local government units is not one of the express legislative powers granted by
the Constitution to regional legislative bodies. 27 In the present case, the question arises whether the delegation to the ARMM
Regional Assembly of the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays conflicts with any provision of
the Constitution.
There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to
create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of
provinces and cities is another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the  Constitution provides, "Each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative" in the House of Representatives.
Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides, "Any province that may hereafter be created, or
any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately
following election to at least one Member . . . " ADaSEH
Clearly, a province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of
the Constitution as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. For the same reason, a city with a
population of 250,000 or more cannot also be created without a legislative district. Thus, the power to create a province, or a
city with a population of 250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even the creation of a city
with a population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a legislative district because once the city's population
reaches 250,000, the city automatically becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5 (3), Article VI of
the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province or city
inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.
For Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must also validly delegate at the same time
the power to create a legislative district. The threshold issue then is, can Congress validly delegate to the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create legislative districts for the House of Representatives? The answer is in the negative. HCaIDS
Legislative Districts are Created or Reapportioned
Only by an Act of Congress
Under the present Constitution, as well as in past 28 Constitutions, the power to increase the allowable membership
in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress. Section 5, Article VI
of the Constitution provides:
SECTION 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. TEHIaA
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least
one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. (Emphasis
supplied) ECaAHS
Section 5 (1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable
membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power
to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress
exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative
bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of
Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress. In Montejo v. COMELEC 29 we held that the
"power of redistricting . . . is traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress) to make laws", and thus is vested
exclusively in Congress.
This textual commitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical.
Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the
creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be
anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like
Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior
legislative body. SaCDTA
The creation of the ARMM, and the grant of legislative powers to its Regional Assembly under its organic act, did not
divest Congress of its exclusive authority to create legislative districts. This is clear from the Constitution and the
ARMM Organic Act, as amended. Thus, Section 20, Article X of the Constitution provides:
SECTION 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and
national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: ASaTHc
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family, and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the
people of the region. DEcTCa
Nothing in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution authorizes autonomous regions, expressly or impliedly, to create
or reapportion legislative districts for Congress.
On the other hand, Section 3, Article IV of R.A. 9054 amending the ARMM Organic Act, provides, "The Regional
Assembly may exercise legislative power . . . except on the following matters: . . . (k) National elections . . . . ." Since
the ARMM Regional Assembly has no legislative power to enact laws relating to national elections, it cannot create a
legislative district whose representative is elected in national elections. Whenever Congress enacts a law creating a legislative
district, the first representative is always elected in the "next national elections" from the effectivity of the law. 30 ADCTac
Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member
of the House of Representatives, is a national official. 31 It would be incongruous for a regional legislative body like the
ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office when its legislative powers extend only to its regional territory. The office
of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a
self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local
or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.
To allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office is to allow its legislative powers to operate outside
the ARMM's territorial jurisdiction. This violates Section 20, Article X of the Constitution which expressly limits the
coverage of the Regional Assembly's legislative powers "[w]ithin its territorial jurisdiction . . . ." SHEIDC
The ARMM Regional Assembly itself, in creating Shariff Kabunsuan, recognized the exclusive nature of Congress'
power to create or reapportion legislative districts by abstaining from creating a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan.
Section 5 of MMA Act 201 provides that:
Except as may be provided by national law, the existing legislative district, which includes Cotabato
City as a part thereof, shall remain. (Emphasis supplied) aTIAES
However, a province cannot legally be created without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that "each
province shall have at least one representative." Thus, the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan without a legislative
district is unconstitutional.
Sema, petitioner in G.R. No. 177597, contends that Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative. (Emphasis supplied) aCTcDH
and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution, which states:
Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter
increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election
 to at least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number
of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of
the Constitution. The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which such new province was
created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically located shall be
correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made within one
hundred and twenty days before the election. (Emphasis supplied) EASCDH
serve as bases for the conclusion that the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, created on 29 October 2006, is automatically
entitled to one member in the House of Representatives in the 14 May 2007 elections. As further support for her stance,
petitioner invokes the statement in Felwa  that "when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district
comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by
operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment."
The contention has no merit.
First. The issue in  Felwa, among others, was whether Republic Act No. 4695 (R.A. 4695), creating the provinces of
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao and providing for congressional representation in the old and new
provinces, was unconstitutional for "creati[ng] congressional districts without the apportionment provided in the  Constitution."
The Court answered in the negative, thus: caHCSD
The Constitution ordains:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than one hundred and twenty Members
who shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their
respective inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one Member. The Congress shall by law make an
apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such
apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of Members
as that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the present
Assembly districts. Each representative district shall comprise as far as practicable, contiguous and compact
territory."
Pursuant to this Section, a representative district may come into existence: (a) indirectly,
through the creation of a province — for "each province shall have at least one member" in the House
of Representatives; or (b) by direct creation of several representative districts within a province . The
requirements concerning the apportionment of representative districts and the territory thereof refer only to the
second method of creation of representative districts, and do not apply to those incidental to the creation of
provinces, under the first method. This is deducible, not only from the general tenor of the provision above
quoted, but, also, from the fact that the apportionment therein alluded to refers to that which is made by an Act
of Congress. Indeed, when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district,
comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by
apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment. cSaCDT
There is no constitutional limitation as to the time when, territory of, or other conditions under which a
province may be created, except, perhaps, if the consequence thereof were to exceed the maximum of 120
representative districts prescribed in the Constitution, which is not the effect of the legislation under
consideration. As a matter of fact, provinces have been created or subdivided into other provinces, with the
consequent creation of additional representative districts, without complying with the aforementioned
requirements. 32  (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the Court sustained the constitutionality of R.A. 4695 because (1) it validly created legislative districts
"indirectly" through a special law enacted by Congress creating a province and (2) the creation of the legislative districts
will not result in breaching the maximum number of legislative districts provided under the 1935 Constitution.Felwa  does not
apply to the present case because in  Felwa the new provinces were created by a national law enacted by Congress
itself. Here, the new province was created merely by a regional law enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly. SDECAI
What  Felwa teaches is that the creation of a legislative district by Congress does not emanate alone from Congress'
power to reapportion legislative districts, but also from Congress' power to create provinces which cannot be created without a
legislative district. Thus, when a province is created, a legislative district is created by operation of theConstitution because
the Constitution provides that "each province shall have at least one representative" in the House of Representatives.
This does not detract from the constitutional principle that the power to create legislative districts belongs exclusively to
Congress. It merely prevents any other legislative body, except Congress, from creating provinces because for a legislative
body to create a province such legislative body must have the power to create legislative districts. In short, only an act of
Congress can trigger the creation of a legislative district by operation of the Constitution. Thus, only Congress has the power
to create, or trigger the creation of, a legislative district.
Moreover, if as Sema claims MMA Act 201 apportioned a legislative district to Shariff Kabunsuan upon its creation,
this will leave Cotabato City as the lone component of the first legislative district of Maguindanao. However, Cotabato City
cannot constitute a legislative district by itself because as of the census taken in 2000, it had a population of only 163,849. To
constitute Cotabato City alone as the surviving first legislative district of Maguindanao will violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of
the Constitution which requires that "[E]ach city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand . . ., shall have at least
one representative." EacHSA
Second. Sema's theory also undermines the composition and independence of the House of Representatives. Under
Section 19, 33 Article VI of R.A. 9054, the ARMM Regional Assembly can create provinces and cities within the ARMM with
or without regard to the criteria fixed in Section 461 of R.A. 7160, namely: minimum annual income of P20,000,000, and
minimum contiguous territory of 2,000 square kilometers or minimum population of 250,000. 34 The following scenarios thus
become distinct possibilities:
(1) An inferior legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly can create 100 or more provinces and
thus increase the membership of a superior legislative body, the House of Representatives, beyond the
maximum limit of 250 fixed in the Constitution (unless a national law provides otherwise); SHCaDA
(2) The proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on one representative for at
least every 250,000 residents will be negated because the ARMM Regional Assembly need not comply with the
requirement in Section 461 (a) (ii) of R.A. 7160 that every province created must have a population of at least
250,000; and
(3) Representatives from the ARMM provinces can become the majority in the House of
Representatives through the ARMM Regional Assembly's continuous creation of provinces or cities within the
ARMM. IHEaAc
The following exchange during the oral arguments of the petition in G.R. No. 177597 highlights the absurdity of
Sema's position that the ARMM Regional Assembly can create provinces:
Justice Carpio:
So, you mean to say [a] Local Government can create legislative district[s] and pack Congress with
their own representatives [?] CIaHDc
Atty. Vistan II: 35 
Yes, Your Honor, because the Constitution allows that.
Justice Carpio:
So, [the] Regional Assembly of [the] ARMM can create and create . . . provinces . . . and, therefore,
they can have thirty-five (35) new representatives in the House of Representatives without Congress
agreeing to it, is that what you are saying? That can be done, under your theory[?] cDAISC
Atty. Vistan II:
Yes, Your Honor, under the correct factual circumstances.
Justice Carpio:
Under your theory, the ARMM legislature can create thirty-five (35) new provinces, there may be . . .
[only] one hundred thousand (100,000) [population], . . ., and they will each have one representative . . .
to Congress without any national law, is that what you are saying? ITSaHC
Atty. Vistan II:
Without law passed by Congress, yes, Your Honor, that is what we are saying.
xxx xxx xxx
Justice Carpio:
So, they can also create one thousand (1000) new provinces, sen[d] one thousand (1000)
representatives to the House of Representatives without a national law[,] that is legally possible,
correct?
Atty. Vistan II:
Yes, Your Honor. 36 (Emphasis supplied)
Neither the framers of the 1987 Constitution in adopting the provisions in Article X on regional autonomy, 37 nor
Congress in enacting R.A. 9054, envisioned or intended these disastrous consequences that certainly would wreck the tri-
branch system of government under our Constitution. Clearly, the power to create or reapportion legislative districts cannot be
delegated by Congress but must be exercised by Congress itself. Even the ARMM Regional Assembly recognizes
this. ESTcIA
 The Constitution empowered Congress to create or reapportion legislative districts, not the regional assemblies.
Section 3 of the Ordinance to the Constitution which states, "[A]ny province that may hereafter be created . . . shall be entitled
in the immediately following election to at least one Member", refers to a province created by Congress itself through a
national law. The reason is that the creation of a province increases the actual membership of the House of Representatives,
an increase that only Congress can decide. Incidentally, in the present 14th Congress, there are 219 38 district
representatives out of the maximum 250 seats in the House of Representatives. Since party-list members shall constitute 20
percent of total membership of the House, there should at least be 50 party-list seats available in every election in case 50
party-list candidates are proclaimed winners. This leaves only 200 seats for district representatives, much less than the 219
incumbent district representatives. Thus, there is a need now for Congress to increase by law the allowable membership of
the House, even before Congress can create new provinces.
It is axiomatic that organic acts of autonomous regions cannot prevail over the Constitution. Section 20, Article X of
the Constitution expressly provides that the legislative powers of regional assemblies are limited "[w]ithin its territorial
jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of the Constitution and national laws, . . . ." The Preamble of the
ARMM Organic Act (R.A. 9054) itself states that the ARMM Government is established "within the framework of
the Constitution". This follows Section 15, Article X of theConstitution which mandates that the ARMM "shall be created . . .
within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic
of the Philippines". TEaADS
The present case involves the creation of a local government unit that necessarily involves also the creation of a
legislative district. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of the creation of municipalities and barangays that does
not comply with the criteria established in Section 461 of R.A. 7160, as mandated in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution,
because the creation of such municipalities and barangays does not involve the creation of legislative districts. We leave the
resolution of this issue to an appropriate case.
In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of
the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create provinces and
cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only
Congress can exercise under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
the Constitution. The ARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because
the Constitution mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assembly
cannot enact a law creating a national office like the office of a district representative of Congress because the legislative
powers of the ARMM Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of
the Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the Province of
Shariff Kabunsuan, is void. acCITS
Resolution No. 7902 Complies with the  Constitution
Consequently, we hold that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the geographic and legislative district of the
First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely complies with Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of
Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, we declare Section 19, Article VI of Republic Act No. 9054 UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants
to the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the power to create provinces and cities. Thus, we
declare VOID Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Consequently, we rule
that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is VALID. ESTAIH
Let a copy of this ruling be served on the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
SO ORDERED. TCEaDI
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo-de Castro and Brion, JJ., join the separate opinion of Justice Tinga.
Azcuna and Chico-Nazario, JJ., join the dissent of Justice Tinga.
Tinga, J., please see dissenting concurring opinion.
Velasco, Jr., J., took no part — close relationship to a party.