Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Navarro-vs-Ermita-612-SCRA-131 PDF

    Uploaded by

    sayyed
    The Supreme Court case Navarro vs Ermita involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law creating the province of Dinagat Islands. The requirements for creating a new province under the law include a minimum population, income, and land area. While Dinagat had a small land area, its annual income exceeded the threshold. The Court upheld the law, finding that Congress has the power to exempt territories from the land area requirement, as was done in this case. Congress acted within its legislative powers in recognizing Dinagat as a viable province despite its land area.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Navarro-vs-Ermita-612-SCRA-131 PDF

    Uploaded by

    sayyed
    109 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court case Navarro vs Ermita involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law creating the province of Dinagat Islands. The requirements for creating a new province under the law include a minimum population, income, and land area. While Dinagat had a small land area, its annual income exceeded the threshold. The Court upheld the law, finding that Congress has the power to exempt territories from the land area requirement, as was done in this case. Congress acted within its legislative powers in recognizing Dinagat as a viable province despite its land area.

    Original Title

    31. Navarro-vs-Ermita-612-SCRA-131.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court case Navarro vs Ermita involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law creating the province of Dinagat Islands. The requirements for creating a new province under the law include a minimum population, income, and land area. While Dinagat had a small land area, its annual income exceeded the threshold. The Court upheld the law, finding that Congress has the power to exempt territories from the land area requirement, as was done in this case. Congress acted within its legislative powers in recognizing Dinagat as a viable province despite its land area.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    109 views2 pages

    Navarro-vs-Ermita-612-SCRA-131 PDF

    Uploaded by

    sayyed
    The Supreme Court case Navarro vs Ermita involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law creating the province of Dinagat Islands. The requirements for creating a new province under the law include a minimum population, income, and land area. While Dinagat had a small land area, its annual income exceeded the threshold. The Court upheld the law, finding that Congress has the power to exempt territories from the land area requirement, as was done in this case. Congress acted within its legislative powers in recognizing Dinagat as a viable province despite its land area.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Navarro vs Ermita 612 SCRA 131

    Requirements in Order to Create a Province: (P.I.L.A)

    1. Population – to be certified by the Chief of the Philippine Statistics Authority or the NSO.
    2. Income -to be certified by the Secretary of the Department of Finance
    3. Land Area – to be certified by the Land Management Bureau, DENR

    For consideration of the Court is the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment dated October
    1
    20, 2010 filed by Movant-Intervenors dated and filed on October 29, 2010, praying that the
    Court (a) recall the entry of judgment, and (b) resolve their motion for reconsideration of the July
    20, 2010 Resolution.

    Facts: On October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved into law Republic Act (R.A.)
    No. 9355 (An 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
    3 4
    (LGC). The plebiscite yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes. With the
    approval of the people from both the mother province of Surigao del.
    On November 10, 2006, petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal and Rene O. Medina,
    former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and
    6
    prohibition (G.R. No. 175158) 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, as taxpayers and residents of the Province of Surigao del Norte, filed
    8
    another petition for certiorari seeking to nullify 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 square
    kilometers 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 both counts.
    On May 12, 2010 Resolution, movants-intervenors 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.

    In the Resolution dated 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

    https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/64877354_90403938663…h=13df368ce46d8603218237d7e69b8b6b&oe=5D3A3D3F&dl=1 23/07/2019, 20G31


    Page 1 of 2
    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.
    On October 5, 2010, the Court issued an order for Entry of Judgment, stating that the decision in
    this case had become final and executory on May 18, 2010.
    Issue: Whether or not provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and regulations Implementing the
    local Government code of 1991 valid.

    Held: the act of congress, recognizing the capacity and viability of Dinagat to become full-
    fledged province, enacted R.A 9355, following the exemption from land area requiremens, which
    can be found in an express provision in the LGC-IRR. In effect, pursuant its legislative powers,
    congress took the exemption in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR and transformed into law when
    enacted R.A 9355 creating province of Dinagat.

    The land area, while is indicator of viability of a local government unit, is not showing that
    Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average annual income of
    82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation. As certified by bureau local Local government Finance.
    Which is more than the required of 20,000,000.00 for the creation of province.

    https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/64877354_90403938663…h=13df368ce46d8603218237d7e69b8b6b&oe=5D3A3D3F&dl=1 23/07/2019, 20G31


    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like