7/29/2019 1Abbas vs Comelec

1/2

Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287Facts

: Da tu F i rdaus i Abbas , e t .a l . cha l l enged the cons t i tu t iona l i t y o f R .A . 67

34 on the following grounds:1) R. A. 6734 conflicts with the Tripoli Agreement (whatconflicts the case doesnt say)2) R. A. 6734 provides for the unconditional creation of the

ARMM and not through the modeof a plebiscite as provided in the Constitution3) TheConstitution provides that ARMM shall be approved by a majority of votes cast in aplebiscite

by all voters residing in the provinces and cities affected, but R.A. 6734 says by amajorityor votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite and only those provinces andcities

where a majority of votes cast in favor of the Organic Act shall be included intheAutonomous Region. R.A. 6734 thus conflicts the

Constitution4) R . A. 673 4 i nc lu des prov inc es a nd c i t i es w hic h d o no t h ave

the same cu l tu ra l andhistorical heritage and other relevant characteristics neededfor admission to the ARMM5) R. A. 6734 violates constitutional guarantee on freedom of

exercise of religion as some itsprovisions run counter to the Koran6) The creation of an

Oversight Committee to supervise the transfer of power to the ARMM iscontrary to theconstitutional mandate that the creation of the autonomous region hingessolely on the

result of the plebiscite7)R. A. 6734 says that only the provinces and cities voting

favorably in such plebisci teshall be included in the ARMM. The provinces and cities

which in the plebiscite do not

votef o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e A u t o n o m o u s R e g i o n s h a l l r e m a i n i n t h e ex i s t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e regions: Provided however, that the President may, by

administrative determination, mergethe existing regions. This provision, Abbas claims, iscontrary to the Constitutional mandatethat, No province city, municipality or barangay

may be created, divided, merged,abolishedor its boundary substantially altered, except in

accordance with the criteria established withthelocal government code and subject to

approval by a majority o f the votes cast in aplebiscite in the unitsdirectly affected.(Art. 10, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution)

Held

: Abbas is wrong. Reasons:1) R. A. 6734 as an enactment of Congress, is superiorto the Tripoli Agreement, being asubsequent law to the Tripoli Agreement(though in my opinion it wouldnt matter if R. A.6734 was prior to the Tripoli

Agreement)2) The transitory provisions of R. A. 6734 does provide for aplebisci te (1 guess nobodyreads the transitory provisions)3) The framers of the

Constitution must have intended that the majority of votes must comefrom each of theconstituent units and not all the votes of the provinces and cities (I couldntunderstand how

the justices arrived at this conclusion)4) It is not for the Court to decide on thewisdom of the law concern ing the inclusion of provinces and cities which Abbas

claims should not be included in a plebiscite5) There i s no ac tua l con t ro vers y ye t

as to any vio lat io n o f f ree do m o f r el igi on, onl y a potential one6) The

creation of an Oversight Committee is merely procedural and in fact will aid inthetimely creation of the ARMM7) The power of the President to merge

administrative regions is inherent in his power

of genera l superv i s ionover l oca l governments . Bes ides , admin i s t ra t i ve reg i ons are not territorial or political regions. Examples of administrative regions are

Regions I to XII and theNCR

Footnotes

7/29/2019 1Abbas vs Comelec

2/2

1 Art. II, Sec 1(2) of R.A. No. 6734 provides that "[t]he plebiscite shall be conductedin the provinces of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Lanao delSur, 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, andZamboanga."

2 The provinces enumerated in the Tripoli Agreement are the same ones mentionedin R.A. No. 6734.

3 With regard to the controversy regarding the alleged inconsistencies between R.A.No. 6734 and the Tripoli Agreement, it may be enlightening to quote from thestatement of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., the principal sponsor of R.A. No. 6734:

xxx xxx xxx

The assertion that the organic Act is a "betrayal" of the Tripoli Agreement is actuallymisplaced, to say the least. Misplaced because it overlooks the fact that the Organic

Act incorporates, at least, 99 percent of the provisions of the Tripoli Agreement.Misplaced, again, because it gratuitously assumes that the Tripoli Agreement canbring more benefits to the people of Mulim Mindanao than the Organic Act.

The truth of the matter is that the Organic Act addresses the basis demands of theMuslim, tribal and Christian populations of the proposed area of autonomy in a farmore reasonable, realistic and immediate manner than the Tripoli Agreement eversought to do.

The Organic Act is, therefore, a boon to, not a betrayal, of the interest of the peopleof Muslim Mindanao.