The Supreme Court (SC)  has resolved not to revoke its decision upholding Republic Act 9355, which created the Province of the Dinagat Islands.
In a two-page resolution the SC denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners former Surigao del Sur political leaders Rodolfo Navarro, Victor Bernal and Rene Medina “as no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned (April 12, 2011) resolution.”
The latest ruling upholds the court’s 2011 resolution on the controversy which had also declared valid the provision in Article 9 (2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing (IRR) the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, which provides, “The land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.”
The petitioners sought the Court to revert to its Feb. 10, 2010 decision, which had declared as unconstitutional RA 9355. The same decision also had declared the proclamation of the Province of Dinagat and the election of its officials null and void and nullified the aforesaid Article 9(2) for going beyond the ambit of Article 461 of the LGC as such exemption is not expressly provided in the law.
In the April 12, 2011 resolution, the Court, voting 9-5, had also granted intervenors Rep. Francisco  Matugas, Hon. Sol Matugas, Hon. Arturo Carlos Egay Jr., Hon. Simeon Vicente Castrence, Hon. Mamerto Galanida, Hon. Margarito Longos and Hon. Cesar Bagundol’s motion for reconsideration of the May 12, 2010 resolution denying their motion for reconsideration of the Feb. 10, 2010 decision. Intervenors are the elective officials for the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte.
In the April 12, 2011 resolution by then Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Court had also granted the urgent motion to recall entry of judgment of said movant-intervenors. Concurring were then Chief Justice Renato Corona, and Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas  Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Jose Portugal Perez and Jose Catral Mendoza. On the other hand, Senior Justice Antonio Capio, and Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama Jr., and now Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno dissented.  
“Indeed, (the movant-intervenors) have sufficiently shown that they have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that if the May 12, 2010 Resolution be not reconsidered, their reelection to their respective positions during the May 10, 2010 polls and its concomitant effects would all be nullified and be put to naught. Given their unique circumstances, movants-intervenors should not be left without any remedy before this Court simply because their interest in this case became manifest only after the case had already been decided,” the court had held in the April 12, 2011 resolution.
The court had declared that it had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall of judgment in light of “attendant extraordinary circumstances” and that granting the recall of the entry of judgment in the case would allow it (the court) to arrive at the correct interpretation of the provisions of the LGC with respect to the creation of local government units.
The court had held in the April 12, 2011 resolution that considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood that islands or a group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly created province than in most cities or municipalities. “It is therefore logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision was expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and Section 450 (for component cities) of the LGC, but was inadvertently omitted in Section 461 (for provinces).
The court had added that “when the exemption was expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR, the inclusion was intended to correct the congressional oversight in Section 461 of the LGC – and to reflect the true legislative intent. It would, then, be in order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article (2) of the LGC-IRR.”
The court had also held that Dinagat’s land area is not conclusive in showing that it cannot become a province, taking into account its average annual income, which is four times more than the minimum requirement for the creation of a province. It had held that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province and that it (the Court) should “not be instrumental in stunting such capacity.” With Benjamin B. Pulta