In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements

in Public Corporations (LAW 216N)

CASE DIGESTS

Submitted by:
Pansacola, Coleen Isabelle U.
SPL1

Submitted to:
Atty. Ulpiano Z. Sarmiento

November 2024
1. Sinsuat v. Ebrahim

G. R. No. 271741, 271972, August 20, 2024

Topic: Creation of Municipalities

Facts:

On July 21, 2018, the Bangsamoro Organic Law was approved. Its
purpose is to establish a political entity and provide for its basic
structure of government in recognition of the justness and legitimacy
of the cause of the Bangsamoro people and the aspirations of Muslim
Filipinos and all indigenous cultural communities in the BARMM to
secure their identity and posterity, allowing for meaningful
self-governance within the framework of the Constitution and the
national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Subsequently, Republic Act No. 11550, or the Charter of the Provinces
of Maguindanao del Norte and Maguindanao del Sur, was enacted into
law. The Municipality of Datu Odin Sinsuat was designated as the
capital town and seat of government of Maguindanao del Norte.
After its approval in the plenary on the third and final reading, Chief
Minister Ebrahim and Bangsamoro Parliament Speaker Atty. Balindong
signed into law BAA 49, or the Bangsamoro Local Governance Code of
2023 (Bangsamoro LGC). It provided for the manner of division and
merger of existing local government units and mandated the conduct of
a plebiscite for divided and merged local government units, among
others.
Thereafter, the BTA, assembled in Parliament, and passed the bills
creating three new towns in Maguindanao del Norte. Chief Minister
Ebrahim signed BAAs 53, 54, and 55 on December 26, 2023. BAA 53
created the Municipality of Nuling. BAA 54 created the Municipality of
Datu Sinsuat Balabaran. BAA 55 created the Municipality of Sheik Abas
Hamza.
The petition in G.R. No. 271741 assailed BAAs 54 and 55, while the
petition in G.R. No. 271972 challenged BAA 53.
Later on, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 11011 and set the
plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the Municipality of Nuling
pursuant to BAA 53 on September 7, 2024. The COMELEC promulgated
on the same date Resolution No. 11012 and set a plebiscite for the
ratification of the creation of the Municipality of Datu Sinsuat Balabaran
and the Municipality of Sheik Abas Hamza pursuant to BAA 54 and 55,
respectively.

Issue:

Whether the Bangsamoro Government, through the Bangsamoro

Transition Authority (BTA) and the Chief Minister, has the power to
create municipalities.

Ruling:

YES. The authority of the Chief Minister emanates from the delegated
power by the legislative department to the Bangsamoro Government,
particularly the power to create municipalities.

In cases relating to the creation of municipalities, cities, and provinces,

the Constitution empowered the legislative department to authorize the
President to designate the officials who will act until the next election of
officers. This appointing power of the President is encapsulated under
Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution.

The powers of the Bangsamoro Government are vested in the

Bangsamoro Parliament which shall exercise those powers and functions
expressly granted to it under the Bangsamoro Organic Law, and those
necessary for, or incidental to, the proper governance and development
of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. The Bangsamoro Parliament
also has the authority to enact laws on matters that are within the
powers and competencies of the Bangsamoro Govemment.

On the other hand, the executive function and authority shall be

exercised by the Cabinet which shall be headed by a Chief Minister. The
Chief Minister shall be elected by a majority vote of all the members of
the Parliament. The Bangsamoro Organic Law provides that all the
powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by the Constitution or
by national law to the Bangsamoro Government shall be vested in the
National Govemment. The power to create municipalities is expressly
granted in Article V, Section 2 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law.

Further, Article VI, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law specifies

the requirements for the creation of municipalities or barangays within
the BARMM.
During the transition period starting from the ratification of the
Bangsamoro Organic Law by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite,
the BTA was created as the interim government of the BARMM.

Article XVI, Section 3 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law also states that
legislative and executive powers in the BARMM during transition shall be
vested in the BTA. It also categorically states that all powers and
functions of the Bangsamoro Government shall be vested in the BTA
during the transition period. Furthermore, Article XVI, Section 4 of the
same law provides the following functions and priorities which should be
accomplished during the transition.

Contrary to petitioners' claims, the functions and priorities

enumerated are not limited, and the same enumeration did not
prevent the BTA from exercising the powers vested in the
Bangsamoro Government in Article V, Section 2 of the
Bangsamoro Organic Law, particularly the creation of
municipalities. Stated differently, the "interim" character of the BTA
refers to the exercise of its powers and functions during the transition
period, or until its dissolution, and does not limit the authority of the BTA
to exercise those powers which are vested in the Bangsamoro
Government.
2. Municipality of Makati v. Municipality of Taguig

G. R. No. 235316, December 1, 2021

Topic: Plebiscite

Facts:

Theis case involves the dispute between the City of Makati and the City
of Taguig over the territories comprising the Enlisted Men’s Barangays
(EMBOs) and Fort Andres Bonifacio (formerly known as Fort William
McKinley). The contention escalated when Taguig filed a Complaint
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig in 1993, challenging the
constitutionality of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518, which
allegedly altered Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite in
violation of constitutional requirements. The case weaved through
multiple pleadings, motions, and interim decisions, including
discrepancies on procedural matters such as forum shopping and the
authority of the presiding judge. Both municipalities (now cities)
anchored their claims on historical narratives, cadastral surveys, and
other legal documents purporting to establish jurisdiction over the
disputed territories. The appellate court initially ruled in favor of Makati,
but following procedural intricacies and a Supreme Court decision on
related forum shopping issues, the case ultimately returned to the
question of rightful jurisdiction based on the preponderance of evidence
and historical records.

Issue:

1. Whether the alteration of the territorial jurisdiction of the City of

Taguig without the benefit of a plebiscite as required in Section 10,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution was valid.

2. Which municipality does the portion of the land covering the northern
portion of Hacienda Maricaban, which eventually became Fort McKinley,
belong to?
Ruling:

1. NO.

The creation of local government units is an inherently legislative

functional. Somewhat similar to a state, a local government unit is
defined by its territorial boundaries, composed of a population as its
constituency, and led by a government of its own that is endowed with
local autonomy and local self-determination. It follows then that the
power to create local government units necessarily includes the power to
define their boundaries. Under various organic laws, this power has
evolved from a severely unrestricted form to its present incarnation,
where it is subordinated to the right of the people to concur with or reject
any proposed changes.

It was only with the advent of the 1973 Constitution that the
requirement of plebiscite was introduced. The plebiscite requirement
was likewise adopted by the 1987 Constitution. In particular, Article X,
Section 10 of the current basic law provides that "[n]o 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."

Consequently, any change in the boundaries of local government units

before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution may be validly effected
without the need for a plebiscite.

A plebiscite would have been required to approve any change in

boundaries. No plebiscite, however, occurred in the interim, except
those that approved the conversion of Makati and Taguig to highly
urbanized cities.

Taguig claims that Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475, s. 1986,

and 518, s. 1990 violate this constitutional guarantee when they
altered Taguig's boundaries without complying with the
plebiscite requirement.

We note, however, that both the assailed proclamations did not

expressly alter Taguig's boundaries. Rather, they merely opened to
disposition certain portions of the military reservation covered by
Proclamation No. 423, s. of 1957 and amendments thereto. The assailed
proclamations' only error lies in their declarations that the disputed
areas are within the jurisdiction of Makati.
2. The disputed area is within the boundaries of Taguig. Indeed, in
resolving boundary disputes, Our duty is merely to carry legislative
intent into effect. We do not fix the territories of the local government
units Ourselves as such would be judicial legislation, which is improper in
Our constitutional paradigm.

The problem in this case is that at no point in the charters of both Makati
and Taguig were their territorial limits expressed in metes and bounds.

By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 824, Makati and Taguig, along with
other municipalities and cities, were carved out from the Province of
Rizal to form the Metropolitan Manila area.

Makati and Taguig were subsequently converted into highly urbanized

cities. However, as stated earlier, Congress declined to categorically
state in metes and bounds the extent of each city's territorial
jurisdiction.

Thus, the statutes from the American colonial period up to the present
merely adopted the cities' historical boundaries without denoting their
specific territories. This being the case, resort to other kinds of evidence
is necessary to settle the present boundary dispute.

After sifting through the voluminous records and the numerous issues
raised by both parties, the SC held that Taguig was able to prove by
preponderance of evidence its claim over the disputed area.

In arriving at this decision, the Court historical evidence, maps, cadastral

surveys, and the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities.

Taguig anchors its claim on Survey Plan Psu-2031, which the US

Government purportedly caused to be prepared and subsequently
approved in 1909. Psu-2031 shows that Parcel 4, where the disputed
areas are located, is within the jurisdiction of Taguig. There is sufficient
proof that Psu-2031 was prepared at the instance of the US Government
to draw a survey plan of Fort McKinley.
3. Province of Maguindanao Del Norte v. Bureau of Local
Government Finance

G.R. No. 265373, June 26, 2023

Facts:
This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by the Province of
Maguindanao del Norte, represented by its Governor Fatima Ainee
Limbona Sinsuat, against the Bureau of Local Government Finance
(BLGF), which seeks to compel the respondents to process the
designation of Badorie M. Alonzo as the Provincial Treasurer of
Maguindanao del Norte, in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 11550, which
is the "Charter of the Provinces of Maguindanao del Norte and
Maguindanao del Sur."

R.A. No. 11550, divided the Province of Maguindanao into two distinct
provinces: Maguindanao del Norte and Maguindanao del Sur. The law
required a plebiscite for its ratification, which was conducted on
September 17, 2022, resulting in the overwhelming approval of the
division. Following the plebiscite, the elected officials of the Province of
Maguindanao assumed transitional governance roles as outlined in
Section 50 of the law. Fatima Ainee L. Sinsuat, the elected
Vice-Governor of the Province of Maguindanao, and Datu Sharifudin
Tucao P. Mastura, the next ranking member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, assumed the positions of Governor and Vice-Governor of
Maguindanao del Norte, respectively.

Subsequently, Governor Sinsuat requested BLGF Region XII to designate

Alonzo as the Provincial Treasurer of Maguindanao del Norte. However,
BLGF required additional documents to verify the assumption to office by
local officials. Despite submitting the required documents, BLGF sought
legal guidance from the BLGF Central Office and MILG of BARMM,
questioning the applicability of Sec. 50 since the plebiscite was held after
the May 2022 National Elections. In contrast, BLGF Region XII promptly
recognized the existence of Maguindanao del Sur and its officials,
allowing them to draw their National Tax Allotment (NTA) share.

Petitioner argues that BLGF Region XII committed grave abuse of

discretion by refusing to act on the request and violated constitutional
and legal provisions.
Issue:
Whether Sinsuat, as duly elected Vice Governor of the Province of
Maguindanao and Datu Mastura, as duly elected next ranking Member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Maguindanao, may
validly assume the positions of Governor and Vice Governor of
Maguindanao del Norte, respectively.

Ruling:
YES, Fatima L. Ainee Sinsuat and Datu Sharifudin Tucao Mastura
validly assumed the positions of Governor and Vice Governor of
Maguindanao del Norte, respectively, but only in acting capacities.

The Court held that Section 50 of Republic Act No. 11550 is applicable to
the governing officials of the newly created Province of Maguindanao del
Norte. Although the plebiscite was conducted after the May 2022
National and Local Elections, the Court found that the law's transitory
provisions should still apply to avoid a vacuum in public offices. Thus,
Fatima L. Ainee Sinsuat and Datu Sharifudin Tucao Mastura validly
assumed their respective positions as acting Governor and Vice
Governor of Maguindanao del Norte.

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Mandamus, ordering BLGF
Region XII to process the appointment of Badorie M. Alonzo or any
qualified person designated by the petitioner as the Provincial Treasurer
of Maguindanao del Norte.
4. Province of Sulu v. Medialdea

G.R. Nos. 242255, 243246 & 243693, September 9, 2024

Facts:

These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of Republic

Act No. 11054 (Bangsamoro Organic Law) which provides that the
territorial jurisdiction of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (BARMM) shall be composed of inter alia of the present
geographical area known as the ARMM created under RA 6734 as
amended by RA 9054. This includes the Province of Sulu.

Subsequently, the Province of Sulu filed a Petition for Certiorari and

Prohibition with an Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and/or writ of Preliminary Injunction before this Court,
urging Court to declare unconstitutional the Bangsamoro Organic Law
and to enjoin the conduct of the plebiscite for its ratification.

Thereafter, the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) also

filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro
Organic Law and praying that all “projects or activities grounded
or emanating from RA 11054 and EO 120 be halted. The Philippine
Association of Islamic Accountants, Inc. and Latiph et al. filed a Mation
for Leave to File Intervention.

On January 25, 2019, the National Plebiscite Board of Canvassers

(NPBOC) revealed the results of the January 21, 2019 plebiscite, where
majority of the votes cast were in favor of the Bangsamoro Organic Law.
The majority of the votes cast in Isabela City, Basilan rejected its
inclusion. Maguindanao Governor Mangudadatu opposed the Province
of Sulu’s Petition.

Issue:

1. Whether the Bangsamoro Organic Law violates Article X of the

Constitution.

2. Whether the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in BARMM despite its

rejection of the Bangsamoro Organic Law is unconstitutional.

3. Whether the Bangsamoro Organic Law violates indigenous peoples’

rights when they were subsumed in the Bangsamoro identity.
Ruling:

1. NO. To determine the validity of enacting the Bangsamoro Organic

Law, it must be sound on the following points:

(1) its enactment must be legal;

(2) the text of the law must conform to the Constitution;

(3) it must not conflict with other laws; and

(4) it must withstand judicial review.

Said law is sound on all the points enumerated.

The Constitution provides for two types of local governance: (1) the
territorial and political subdivisions composed of provinces, cities,
municipalities, barangays; and (2) autonomous regions. Further
territorial and political subdivisions are allowed within autonomous
regions. Pursuant to the Constitution, R.A. 6649 established the
Regional Consultative Commission for Muslim Mindanao, which
subsequently drafted RA 6734 (ARMM). R.A. 6734 was later amended by
R.A. 9054, which both detailed the powers of the national government,
in relation to those reserved for the regional government. Congress may
repeal, modify, or replace an earlier organic act provided that the text
remains consistent with the Constitution and subject to the affected
people’s ratification. While the Constitution does not precisely define the
boundaries of autonomy for autonomous regions, Article X, Section 20
specifies the powers vested in their legislative assemblies under the
Constitution:

Sec. 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:

(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.

These powers were reiterated in Article V, Section 2 of the

Bangsamoro Organic Law, to be exercised by the Bangsamoro
government, without prejudice to the president’s general
supervision. Further, the national government retains all powers,
functions, and responsibilities that are not granted to the
Bangsamoro government by the Constitution or national laws.
The national government retains authority over matters
including, but not limited to, national defense and security,
citizenship, foreign affairs, and foreign trade.

2. YES. It was erroneous to include the Province of Sulu in

BARMM, when its people did not favorably vote to ratify the
Bangsamoro Organic Law.

In the assailed plebiscite to ratify the organic law, while all the political
units directly affected must favorably vote for its inclusion in the
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region by a majority, the provinces and cities
of the present ARMM voted as one geographical area. In the votes cast in
the entire ARMM, 1,540,017 voted “yes” which overwhelmingly won in
the region, as opposed to the 198,750 “no” votes. The Province of Sulu
rejected the measure, as the “yes” votes narrowly lost at 137,630
against the 163,526 “no” votes. This created the absurd situation where
petitioner’s constituents did not ratify the organic law, but it was
nonetheless made part of the newly created Bangsamoro Autonomous
Region.

In considering the ARMM as one geographical area, the Bangsamoro

Organic Law transgressed the Constitution and disregarded the
autonomy of each constituent unit of what used to comprise the ARMM.
The Province of Sulu, as a political subdivision under the ARMM, did not
lose its character as such and as a unit that was granted local autonomy.
The Constitution and the Local Government Code provide for how
political entities may be abolished. The Province of Sulu cannot be
deemed abolished upon its rejection of the Bangsamoro Organic Law.
Thus, it was illegally included in the autonomous region, and the Organic
Law explicitly violated the constitutional provision that “only provinces,
cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be
included in the autonomous region.
3. NO, the Bangsamoro Organic Law does not violate indigenous peoples’
rights when they were subsumed in the Bangsamoro identity. Section 1
of the Bangsamoro Organic Law defines who the Bangsamoro people
are: ”those who, at the advent of the Spanish colonization, were
considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and the Sulu
archipelago and its adjacent islands, whether of mixed or of full blood,
shall have the right to identify themselves, their spouses and
descendants, as Bangsamoro.”

BARMM is a political entity that provides for its basic structure of

government, recognizing the “justness and legitimacy of the cause of the
Bangsamoro people and the aspirations of Muslim Filipinos and all
indigenous cultural communities in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region
in Muslim Mindanao.” The aim is to “secure their identity and posterity,”
enabling “meaningful self-governance within the framework of the
Constitution and the national sovereignty, as well as territorial integrity
of the Republic of the Philippines.”
5. Abella v. Commission on Audit Proper

G.R. No. 238940, April 19, 2022

Doctrine: The appropriation of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous

Expenses (EME) separate from discretionary funds in a local
government's budget, in violation of Section 325(h) of the Local
Government Code, is impermissible. The decision underscores the
principle that local government units must adhere to limitations set by
law, and any attempt to circumvent these limitations through separate
appropriations is subject to disallowance.

Facts:

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Regional Office No.

XIII disapproved the separate item for Extraordinary and Miscellaneous
Expenses (EME) appropriation in the City of Butuan's annual budget for
the fiscal year 2000.

The disapproval was based on the violation of Section 325(h)4 of

Republic Act (RA) No. 71605 or the Local Government Code of 1991
(LGC), which prohibits appropriations with the same purpose as
discretionary funds. Despite seeking reconsideration, the disapproval
was affirmed by the DBM. Subsequently, the City Government of Butuan
continued to appropriate and grant EME to its officials until 2010, leading
to several Notices of Disallowance (NDs) being issued for lack of legal
basis. The petitioners, as recipients held liable to settle the disallowances,
appealed the NDs, arguing violations of their right to speedy disposition,
contesting the propriety of the NDs, and invoking good faith.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance was proper.

Ruling:

YES, the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance was proper. The court
upheld the disallowance, stating that EME and discretionary funds
have the same purpose and cannot be made separate items of
appropriation, as per Section 325(h) of the LGC. The court noted
that COA Circulars consistently characterized Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) as similar to discretionary expenses. It
also highlighted that the local ordinance circumvented limitations in the
LGC and the General Appropriations Acts by appropriating separate
amounts for discretionary purposes.

Petitioners cannot rely on the principle of local autonomy to validate the

EME disbursements which were based on a provision in the local
ordinance that patently contravenes the prescribed limitations in the
LGC and the GAAs. The concept of local autonomy does not
preclude intervention by the national government in the form of
supervision to ensure that the local programs, fiscal and
otherwise, are consistent with the national goals. Fiscal
decentralization — as an aspect of local autonomy — "does not signify
the absolute freedom of the LGUs to create their own sources of revenue
and to spend their revenues unrestrictedly or upon their individual
whims and caprices." Indeed, local autonomy was never intended to
sever the partnership and interdependence between the central
administration and LGUs. Thus, notwithstanding autonomy, local
appropriations and expenditures are still under the supervision of the
President, through the DBM, as well as the authority of the COA under
its plenary auditing power, to ensure compliance with laws and
regulations. Concomitant to the COA's auditing power is the authority to
disallow disbursements of government funds, which contravenes
established laws as in this case.

Additionally, the court affirmed that the good faith or bad faith of the
recipients is inconsequential when disbursements are without legal basis,
thus, recipients are liable to refund the amounts received.