Navarro vs Ermita

NAVARRO v ERMITA Facts: Republic Act No. 9355 created a province of Dinagat Islands, formerly part of Surigao Del Norte. It was questioned for constitutionality for not being in compliance with the population or the land area requirements of the Local Government Code under Sec. 461. Previous decisions relating to this case declared the creation of the province as unconstitutional. Issue: Is the creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate province constitutional? Held: YES. SC now looked at the central policy considerations in the creation of provinces. They compared the LGC provisions on the creation of municipalities and cities and how they allow an exception to the land area requirement in cases of non-contiguity as provided for under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC.SC concluded that it must have been the intent of the legislators to extend such exception to provinces especially considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago. In fact, while such exemption was absent under Section 461 of the LGC (provision relating to creation of provinces), such was incorporated under the LGC-IRR thus correcting the congressional oversight in said provision and reflecting the true legislative intent. Moreover, the earlier decisions show a very restrictive construction which could trench on the equal protection clause, as it actually defeats the purpose of local autonomy and decentralization as enshrined in the Constitution. Hence, the land area requirement should be read together with territorial contiguity. NAVARRO v ERMITA Facts: Republic Act No. 9355 created a province of Dinagat Islands, formerly part of Surigao Del Norte. It was questioned for constitutionality for not being in compliance with the population or the land area requirements of the Local Government Code under Sec. 461. Previous decisions relating to this case declared the creation of the province as unconstitutional. Issue: Is the creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate province constitutional? Held: YES. SC now looked at the central policy considerations in the creation of provinces. They compared the LGC provisions on the creation of municipalities and cities and how they allow an exception to the land area requirement in cases of non-contiguity as provided for under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC.SC concluded that it must have been the intent of the legislators to extend such exception to provinces especially considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago. In fact, while such exemption was absent under Section 461 of the LGC (provision relating to creation of provinces), such was incorporated under the LGC-IRR thus correcting the congressional oversight in said provision and reflecting the true legislative intent. Moreover, the earlier decisions show a very restrictive construction which could trench on the equal protection clause, as it actually defeats the purpose of local autonomy and decentralization as enshrined in the Constitution. Hence, the land area requirement should be read together with territorial contiguity.

NAVARRO v ERMITA Facts: Republic Act No. 9355 created a province of Dinagat Islands, formerly part of Surigao Del Norte. It was questioned for constitutionality for not being in compliance with the population or the land area requirements of the Local Government Code under Sec. 461. Previous decisions relating to this case declared the creation of the province as unconstitutional. Issue: Is the creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate province constitutional? Held: YES. SC now looked at the central policy considerations in the creation of provinces. They compared the LGC provisions on the creation of municipalities and cities and how they allow an exception to the land area requirement in cases of non-contiguity as provided for under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC.SC concluded that it must have been the intent of the legislators to extend such exception to provinces especially considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago. In fact, while such exemption was absent under Section 461 of the LGC (provision relating to creation of provinces), such was incorporated under the LGC-IRR thus correcting the congressional oversight in said provision and reflecting the true legislative intent. Moreover, the earlier decisions show a very restrictive construction which could trench on the equal protection clause, as it actually defeats the purpose of local autonomy and decentralization as enshrined in the Constitution. Hence, the land area requirement should be read together with territorial contiguity.