Your Excellency:
With profound respect and a sincere commitment to upholding constitutional integrity and fostering informed decision-making, we address you once more regarding our previous appeal dated March 25, 2024, requesting your esteemed office to veto Senate Bill No. 2507, An Act Establishing the Negros Island Region (NIR).
In the wake of recent developments, we are compelled to reinforce our stance and draw attention to critical constitutional and non-constitutional concerns.
Building upon the arguments articulated in our initial correspondence, we respectfully submit additional reasons, with the legal arguments meticulously crafted by the esteemed constitutional lawyer Atty. Marcelino C. Maxino, for your careful consideration.
Atty. Maxino is the former president of Foundation University and the former law dean of the same university. He was a bar consultant of the State Bar of California, USA and the lead appellate attorney of the California Court of Appeal based in San Jose, California. He is an Outstanding Negrense awardee and the former president of the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The issues implicated by the creation of the NIR are of two layers. The first layer consists of constitutional issues. The second layer involves economic and other non-constitutional issues.
The constitutional issues are threshold issues. They must be overcome before we even consider the second-layer issues.
FIRST LAYER: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
First, NIR violates the Ordinance to the 1987 Constitution.
Section 4 of the Ordinance provides:
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be appended to the Constitution proposed by the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and shall be submitted to a plebiscite simultaneously with such Constitution, and shall take effect upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite.
Does section of the Ordinance make the Ordinance a part of the 1987 Constitution? It clearly does. To append means to add. What is added becomes part of that to which it is added.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Ordinance was submitted to a national plebiscite together with the main body of the Constitution itself, and ratified by the people in the same plebiscite, evincing a national resolve to keep the two documents together as one, permanently and inseparably.
Indeed, in Sema v. COMELEC, 580 Phil. 623 (2008), the Supreme Court recognized the Ordinance as part of the Constitution and at par with the Constitution in every way and authority against which the validity of a legislative enactment must be measured. This is clear from the following language of the court:
In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. (Emphasis added)
Because the two documents are one and inseparable, they can only be amended through the same amendment process. There are three modes of amending the Constitution, but it is not necessary to detail them here. What is only necessary is to point out and underscore that in each and all of them a plebiscite is required to pass the amendment.
So the question is: Is the creation of the NIR an amendment to the Ordinance?
It certainly is. There is no NIR in the Ordinance. Inserting NIR into the Ordinance adds it to the Ordinance. Addition is amendment.
Not only that. NIR is created by detaching Negros Occidental from Region 6 and detaching Negros Oriental and Siquijor from Region 7. Removing these provinces from their respective regions alters the regional organizational framework as set up in the Ordinance and approved by the people. Such alteration of the Ordinance framework is a constitutional amendment that requires a plebiscite.
Indeed, to argue that the Ordinance regional framework can be changed by ordinary statute, or even by executive order, leads to absurd results. The erratic logic means Congress can:
- Abolish all the regions created in the Ordinance and revert the country to where it was prior to 1987, which is: no regions; or
- Transfer NCR to Region 12, and Region 6 to Region 1; or
- Reduce the country to just 2 regions; or
- Make every province a region in itself.
Second, NIR violates Section 10, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 10, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
No 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,
With respect to the NIR issue, three words in this provision should be underscored: “merged,” “boundary,” and “political”. What do those words mean?
To merge is to unite, fuse, coalesce, or combine. The merger can be of anything. But in the constitutional and political context, merger refers to the processes, principles, and structures that are associated with the governance of a country or other political entity. Merger encompasses the activities related to the distribution and exercise of power within a state, as well as the mechanisms for making decisions that apply to members of a group, community, or society.
The administrative merger envisioned in the NIR is exactly this kind of merger. It is prohibited by Section 10, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution. It cannot be done without the required plebiscite.
The same is true in the case of boundaries. “Boundary” in the above-quoted provision is not limited to physical boundary. It includes political boundaries, as explicitly expressed in the last four words of section 10: “political units directly affected.” It also includes considerations of language, cultural, tradition, and history. In fact, an examination of the Ordinance regional make-up readily shows that the grouping proceeds along lines of shared language, social interaction, culture, tradition, and history. Geographical lines follow linguistic and cultural elements. It is not the other way around.
Because the creation of NIR comes under the provision of Section 10, Article X, it cannot be done “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.”
So what are the criteria established in the Local Government Code? They are income, people, and land area. Has any study been done to determine if the NIR creation has any impact on these considerations? Where are the reports on those studies?
Because Section 10, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution applies, a plebiscite is required.
Third, NIR violates Section 2, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 2, Article X, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Section 2 guarantees the autonomy of local government units (LGUs). The creation of the NIR, by altering the administrative and fiscal structures of the involved provinces, cities, and municipalities impinges on the autonomy of these local government units to the extent that it affects the powers, responsibilities, and resources of the existing LGUs.
SECOND-LAYER: NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Assuming for the sake of argument that the NIR bill is constitutional, the NIR idea should be rejected for being ill-conceived. It is ill-conceived for lack of feasibility study, for being unnecessary, and for other reasons outlined below.
First, Lack of Study
What studies have been made to support the NIR formation? How viable is the idea? Is it necessary? It is hard to believe that for a proposal as big and as ambitious as the NIR, no credible feasibility study has been made and no public hearing has been conducted. The people affected should receive the benefits of public debate so that they can make informed decisions on the issue at plebiscite time.
Second, NIR Is Unnecessary
What NIR seeks to achieve can be achieved without it. The solution is honest and competent service, seriousness of purpose, and dedication to duty. NIR is a wasteful excuse.
Third, NECEBOLEY Mega Project
Only a few days ago, Business Mirror published the news about the Visayas mega project connecting the provinces of Negros Oriental, Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte by bridges and expressways. The current status highlights the following:
- Project Development: The project, dubbed “Neceboley”-an acronym for Negros, Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte-is intended to connect these four major islands in the Visayas through a network of all-weather bridges and expressways.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): AG&P Industrial and VNIHC have signed a MOU for this $15-billion mega infrastructure project.
- Proponent Status: VNIHC has been granted certificates of acceptance, giving it the original proponent status by the provincial governments of Negros Oriental, Cebu, Bohol, and Southern Leyte. This status allows VNIHC to undertake the development under a public-private partnership framework.
- Project Management and Construction: AG&P Industrial’s role will be in project management, construction, and delivery of the project. Engineering and pre-construction work is expected to begin by the second quarter of 2024.
- Financial Backing and Partnerships: The project will be supported by a private consortium of global partners who will finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain the infrastructure. Three major commercial banks are joining the and AG&P will serve as the technical lead and execution arm, providing financial backing.
- Project Execution Phases: The project will be executed in two phases. Phase 1 focuses on the construction and operation of a 238.05-kilometer bridge and toll road expressway network linking the four major islands. Phase 2 will center on land reclamation and development of the reclaimed land for various purposes
- Impact and Significance: The project is expected to have a significant impact on the economy of the provinces involved and the country’s GDP. It is estimated to directly affect 22 million Filipinos in the Visayas region and have indirect impacts on other industries and the business sector.
This mega project is being undertaken without NIR participation, proving that Negros Oriental does not need NIR.
The pie-in-the-sky promises of NIR do not even come close to what this mega project, which links by state-of-the-art bridges and highways the provinces of Negros Oriental, Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte, can provide to the people of Negros Oriental in terms of enhanced mobility, commerce, trade, and economic activity to improve their lives in the long haul.
Fourth, Timing of the church’s actions:
The Church’s response to EO 183 creating the NIR did not necessitate significant outcry as the late Gov. Roel Degamo consistently opposed the NIR creation, articulating concerns about Negros Oriental’s disadvantage compared to Negros Occidental. Governor Degamo effectively represented our interests.
Fifth, On the claim of poverty reduction during the NIR period:
The claim of a poverty rate decreased to 32% after the 2-year NIR implementation lacks credibility. There is no substantiation provided for this assertion. Former Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno attributed the revocation of NIR to insufficient funds, contradicting the notion of its success during its 2-year implementation in 2015-2017.
The Budget Secretary disclosed that there was no allocation for the NIR in the 2016 General Appropriations Act or in the 2017 proposed national budget. He said that the NIR would cost the government at least PHP19 billion. He further said “that’s not affordable (because) we have other priorities.”
The cost of implementing NIR underscores the financial challenge, making the claim about its feasibility without a huge budget questionable.
Sixth, Absence of due process:
No notice or invitation to participate in Congressional or Senate hearings regarding the NIR creation bill was received, violating the basic elements of due process — Notice and Hearing.
Seventh, Cultural and linguistic disparities:
- Teresa S. Abesamis, former professor at the Asian Institute of Management and fellow of the Development Academy of the Philippines highlights the linguistic diversity between Negros Oriental and Siquijor (Cebuano-speaking) and Negros Occidental (Ilonggo-speaking), emphasizing the following:
“The lingua franca in Negros Oriental and Siquijor is Cebuano. Negros Occidental is Ilonggo. It is hard enough for the farmers and fishers of Negros Oriental and Siquijor to learn about opportunities and technologies now. Will the bureaucrats speak to them in Ilonggo or Cebuano? If Cebuano, how will the people of Negros Occidental respond?
They are probably more comfortable being in the same region as Panay. Linguists classify Ilonggo and Cebuano as languages, not dialects. Wars have been fought and nations divided over language! Let us learn from history!”
- Firth McEachern, consultant for local government and international development, points out the potential recruitment and communication difficulties in a linguistically diverse regional office, suggesting it could lead to linguistic factions or reliance on Tagalog or English, marginalizing native languages.
- Atty. Jose Imaculado L. Palmitos, President, Parish Pastoral Council, St. Vincent Ferrer Parish, Larena, Siquijor advocates for preserving the cultural and linguistic cohesion within Region VII, emphasizing the historical and economic bonds between Negros Oriental, Siquijor, Cebu, and Bohol.
Eight, On the claim that the involvement of the Diocese of Dumaguete on NIR concerns is a violation of the Separation of Church and State
Whenever church leaders – including bishops, priests, and laypeople – voice opposition to government policies, programs, or practices, public officials often invoke the constitutional principle of separation of state and church to silence them. We believe it is a misconception that the separation of Church and State implies that the Church cannot voice concerns about the actions or performance of the State.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution outlines the principle of the separation of Church and State in its declaration of principles. Regrettably, this principle is frequently misinterpreted. In reality, this provision regarding the separation of Church and State is not about restricting the Church from engaging in activities like criticizing government practices. Instead, it pertains to limitations on the state, such as prohibiting the establishment of an official state religion, the allocation of public funds to support such a religion, and interference in the affairs of the Church.
The church possesses fundamental rights of belief, and if those rights are infringed upon, it constitutes a violation of the constitution by the state.
In this case, the church is just amplifying the voices of those who are unheard, unconsulted, and marginalized in the discussion surrounding the NIR Bill proposition.
Recommendation
In light of the foregoing formidable constitutional and non-constitutional concerns, and the lack of feasibility studies on the necessity and viability of removing Negros Oriental, Siquijor, and Negros Occidental from their respective regions and putting them into one region of different languages, cultures, traditions, and histories, we recommend to Your Excellency to veto the NIR bill and return it to Congress for further study, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.
With unwavering sincerity and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law, we humbly implore Your Excellency to give due consideration to our earnest appeal.
Respectfully yours,
THE CIRCLE OF DISCERNMENT OF THE DIOCESE OF DUMAGUETE
Email Address: [email protected]
MOST REV. JULITO B. CORTES, D.D.
Bishop, Diocese of Dumaguete Contact number: 0917-7249-800
