FACTS:

On June 30, 2011, Republic Act (RA) No. 10153, aimed at synchronizing the elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with the national and local elections, was enacted. The law rescheduled the ARMM elections initially set for August 8, 2011, to the second Monday of May 2013, and every three years thereafter, aligning these regional elections with the country's regular national and local elections. It also empowered the President to appoint officers-in-charge (OICs) for key regional positions until the duly elected officials in the May 2013 elections would assume office. Even before the enactment of RA No. 10153, the proposed bills (House Bill No. 4146 and Senate Bill No. 2756) faced challenges on their validity. These challenges continued and multiplied after the law's passage.

The Constitution mandates the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, with Congress responsible for enacting organic acts for these regions. RA No. 6734, the first organic act for ARMM, was passed in 1989, and after a plebiscite in November 1990, the ARMM was established comprising the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi. Subsequent laws, RA No. 9054 and RA No. 9140, further refined and expanded the organic act and rescheduled the ARMM elections. Over time, elections were rescheduled multiple times through various legislative acts, including RA No. 9333 and most recently RA No. 10153, to synchronize them with national and local elections.

After the enactment of RA No. 10153, several petitions were filed challenging its constitutionality. These included petitions from Rep. Edcel Lagman, Atty. Romulo Macalintal, Louis "Barok" Biraogo, Jacinto Paras, Alamarim Centi Tillah, Datu Casan Conding Cana, and the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino Lakas ng Bayan. They argued that RA No. 10153, along with RA Nos. 9140 and 9333, failed to comply with the required supermajority vote and plebiscite. The Supreme Court consolidated these cases, heard oral arguments, and subsequently issued a temporary restraining order on the implementation of RA No. 10153.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections.

2. Whether the passage of RA No. 10153 violates Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

3. Whether the passage of RA No. 10153 requires a supermajority vote and plebiscite:

   1. Does the postponement of the ARMM regular elections constitute an amendment to Section 7, Article XVIII of RA No. 9054?

   2. Does the requirement of a supermajority vote for amendments or revisions to RA No. 9054 violate Section 1 and Section 16(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the corollary doctrine on irrepealable laws?

   3. Does the requirement of a plebiscite apply only in the creation of autonomous regions under paragraph 2, Section 18, Article X of the 1987 Constitution?

4. Whether RA No. 10153 violates the autonomy granted to the ARMM.

5. Whether the grant of the power to appoint OICs violates:

   1. Section 15, Article X of the 1987 Constitution

   2. Section 16, Article X of the 1987 Constitution

   3. Section 18, Article X of the 1987 Constitution

6. Whether the proposal to hold special elections is constitutional and legal.

RULING:

The petitions were DISMISSED and the constitutionality of RA No. 10153 was UPHELD in toto.

1. Synchronization as a recognized constitutional mandate:

   The Court agrees that synchronization is a constitutional mandate as inferred from the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the 1987 Constitution and previous election synchronization measures.

2. The President's Certification on the Urgency of RA No. 10153:

   The Court held that the President’s certification was valid, thereby exempting the bill from the three-readings-on-separate-days requirement.

3. Resolution of supermajority vote and plebiscite requirement:

   • RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 are not amendments to RA No. 9054 but supplementary.

   • The supermajority voting requirement was ruled unconstitutional for giving RA No. 9054 the character of an irrepealable law.

   • The plebiscite requirement was deemed excessive beyond the scope of what the Constitution dictates.

4. The synchronization issue:

   Synchronization is a constitutional mandate that includes ARMM elections, thus aligning regional elections with national and local elections.

5. Appointment of OICs:

   The Court upheld the validity of RA No. 10153, allowing the President to appoint OICs for the interim period to ensure governance in ARMM while transitioning to synchronized elections.

6. Special elections:

   The Court cannot compel the COMELEC to call special elections as Congress has already passed RA No. 10153, specifying the synchronization schedule.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Synchronization of Elections: The 1987 Constitution mandates synchronization of election terms for coherence and uniformity.

2. Legislature Powers and Certification: The President's certification of urgency allows overridden requirements for separate reading days for bills.

3. Amendment and Voting Requirements: Acts supplementary to another act are not amendments and do not necessitate supermajority or plebiscite unless it alters substantial matters of an Organic Act.

4. Constitutionality and Legislative Intent: Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality unless proven otherwise; legislative discretion is to be respected unless there is a manifest abuse of that discretion.

5. Autonomy under National Policy: Regional autonomy must work within the framework of national policies, especially when mandated by the Constitution.

6. Interim Governance Measures: Appointment of OICs by the President for transitional periods is valid and essential to maintain governance integrity during transitions.