[CASE DIGEST] Chiongbian v. Orbos (G.R. No. 96754)

June 22, 1995

FACTS:

Pursuant to Sec. 18  of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, Congress passed Republic Act 6724, or the organic act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The law called for the conduct of a plebiscite to be held in 23 provinces in order to determine those who will assent to their inclusion in the autonomous region.

Four provinces voted in favor of creating the autonomous region, namely: Lanao Del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Twi-tawi. Hence, in accordance with R.A. 6734, these four provinces made up the ARMM.

With respect to the remaining provinces that did not vote in favor of creating ARMM, R.A. 6724 provides: “That only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such plebiscites shall be included in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions. Provided, however, that the President may, by administrative determination, merge the existing regions.”\

Pursuant to the authority granted by the above provision, then President Aquino issued E.O. No. 429, “PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMM.” Said EO transferred the provinces that did not vote to join ARMM to another region.

Cong. James Chiongban and the rest of the petitioners protested and challenged the validity of E.O. 429. They argued that there is no law which authorizes the president to make alterations on the existing structure of governmental units or, in other words nothing calls for the president to make “reorganization” under existing laws.

They argued further that the authority “to merge” granted in R.A. 6724 does not include the authority to “reorganize” even if it does not affect the apportionement of the congressional representatives.

Finally, they contended that Article XIX Sec. 13 of R.A. 6724 is unconstitutional because it is an invalid delegation of power by the legislature to the President, and that the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law.

ISSUE:

Whether Sec. 13 of Article XIX of R.A. 724 is invalid. – NO.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that a legislative standard need not be expressed, it may simply be gathered or implied by reading the entirety of the law with other existing statutes. It need not be found in the law challenge because it may be embodied in other statues on the same subject as that of the challenge legislation.

With respect to the power to merge existing administrative regions, the standard is to be found in the same policy underlying the grant to the President in R.A. 5435 of the power to reorganize the Executive department to “Promote simplicity, economy, and efficiency in the government to enable it to pursue programs consistent with national goals for accelerated social and economic development and to improve the service transaction of the public business.”

The choice of the President as delegate of administrative function is logical because the division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but also the direction of executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices.

While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments.

The regions themselves are not territorial and political divisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays but are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. The power conferred on the President is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described as administrative in nature.