Ali, Jr. v. Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament, G.R. No. E02219 (September 30, 2025)

Ali, Jr. v. Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament

G.R. Nos. E-02219 & E-02235, September 30, 2025
EN BANC
Zalameda, J.

DOCTRINE:

A regional redistricting law enacted by the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) is unconstitutional and void if it is promulgated during the official election period in violation of national election laws, if it creates legislative districts that are not contiguous, compact, and adjacent, and if it attempts to alter the fundamental requirements of representation by allowing the appointment of representatives or severing the mandatory link between candidacy, residency, and voter registration.

FACTS:

The first regular election for the Bangsamoro Government was postponed and reset to October 13, 2025. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Province of Sulu v. Medialdea (September 9, 2024), which excluded the Province of Sulu from the BARMM, the seven parliamentary district seats previously allocated to Sulu needed to be reallocated. On August 19, 2025, after the official start of the election period on August 14, 2025, the BTA passed Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. (BAA) 77, which reconstituted the parliamentary districts and reallocated the seven vacant seats among the remaining BARMM areas.

Petitioners, composed of registered voters and nominees of political parties, immediately filed petitions challenging BAA 77 on grounds including its timing, which was during the election period in violation of the Voter’s Registration Act; the unconstitutional creation of non-contiguous districts in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao del Norte, and Cotabato City; and specific provisions unlawfully expanding the President’s appointment power and severing the link between residency/registration and candidacy. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) confirmed that BAA 77’s late enactment made it operationally impossible to conduct a free, orderly, and credible election on the scheduled date, as it required the reprinting of ballots and a complete overhaul of electoral preparations in insufficient time.

The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against BAA 77. The COMELEC manifested that, with BAA 77 suspended by the TRO and BAA 58 (the prior law) having been rendered inoperable by the exclusion of Sulu, a legal vacuum existed, making it impossible to proceed with the October 13, 2025 parliamentary elections. 

ISSUE(S):

1. Was Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77) unconstitutional for being enacted during the election period and thereby altering or creating new precincts in violation of national laws?

2. Was BAA 77 unconstitutional for violating the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s requirement that parliamentary districts must comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction?

3. Was Section 4 of BAA 77, which authorized the President to appoint interim parliamentary district representatives, unconstitutional?

4. Did the invalidation of the repealing law (BAA 77) automatically revive the previously repealed law (BAA 58) for the purpose of conducting the elections?

RULING:

1. Was Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77) unconstitutional for being enacted during the election period and thereby altering or creating new precincts in violation of national laws?

YES. Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act prohibits any alteration of precincts or the creation of new ones once the election period has begun. By mandating municipal redistricting within the election period, BAA 77 compelled precinct reassignments and thereby transgressed this prohibition.

This legislative act falls squarely within the prohibition of Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act. The provision reads:

Section 5. Precincts and their Establishment. In preparation for the general registration in 1997, the Commission shall draw updated maps of all the precincts nationwide. Upon completion of the new precinct maps, all the precincts established in the preceding elections shall be deemed abolished.

For the purpose of the general registration, the Commission shall create original precincts only. Spin-off precinct may be created after the regular elections of 1998 to accommodate additional voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the original precincts.

The Commission shall introduce a permanent numbering of all precincts which shall be indicated by Arabic numerals and a letter of the English alphabet. Original or mother precincts shall be indicated by the Arabic numeral and letter “A” of the English alphabet. Spin-off or daughter precincts shall be indicated by the Arabic numeral and letter of the English alphabet starting with letter B and so on.

No territory comprising an election precinct shall be altered or a new precinct be established at the start of the election period.

Splitting of an original precinct or merger of two or more original precincts shall not be allowed without redrawing the precinct map/s $$120$$ days before election day.

Taken together, these circumstances establish a definitive finding of invalidity. Far from being a mere technical irregularity, the timing and substance of BAA 77 directly contravene the plain text of a national election law and violate the constitutional mandate that the enactments of autonomous regions must conform to statutes of general application.

Accordingly, BAA 77 is void for being enacted in excess of the BTA’s legislative authority. Its enactment during the election period, with inevitable alteration of precincts and disruption of the electoral system, is inconsistent with the Constitution and national laws.

2. Was BAA 77 unconstitutional for violating the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s requirement that parliamentary districts must comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction?

YES. Applying the foregoing definition as regards parliamentary districts in the BARMM, the redistricting under BAA 77 shows that some local government units in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao del Norte, and Cotabato City, which were transferred from one district to another, were not contiguous and adjacent to one another, and hence, violative of this fundamental redistricting requirement. The Constitution proscribes gerrymandering, as it mandates each legislative district to comprise, as far as practicable, a contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.

From the foregoing, it is clear that BAA 77 violates the express requirement that each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction under the Bangsamoro Organic Law. While specific districts were mentioned, the redistricting was the result of the transfer of certain municipalities and barangays, which led to the parliamentary districts as provided under BAA 77.

3. Was Section 4 of BAA 77, which authorized the President to appoint interim parliamentary district representatives, unconstitutional?

YES. Section 4. of BAA 77 departs from this constitutional and statutory design. By allowing the president to appoint ‘Interim Parliamentary District Representatives’ with full rights, duties, and privileges of elected members, the law creates a class of unelected legislators whose mandate does not come from the people of the affected districts. In effect, the provision vests in the president the power to confer legislative representation an authority which the Constitution does not recognize and which the Bangsamoro Organic Law itself does not grant.

Fundamentally, Section. 4 violates Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution, which provides that an organic act of an autonomous region must establish a government with an executive department and a legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. This constitutional mandate makes it clear that members of the Bangsamoro Parliament must obtain their mandate directly from the people of their districts, not through presidential appointment.

4. Did the invalidation of the repealing law (BAA 77) automatically revive the previously repealed law (BAA 58) for the purpose of conducting the elections?

NO. This rule, however, has to be applied in a more nuanced manner. It rests on the assumption that the prior law is itself valid, complete, and capable of implementation. It further assumes that reverting to the status quo ante will restore a constitutionally sound legal framework. The present case demonstrates the limits of this assumption. BAA 58, post-Province of Sulu, is the prevailing status quo prior to the enactment of BAA 77. Clearly, this state of affairs cannot be revived because it is already constitutionally infirm and legally inoperable.

The invalidity of BAA 77 cannot revive BAA 58. To allow the latter to prevail leads to a violation of the foregoing legal requirements. After Our Decision in Province of Sulu, BAA 58 ceased to provide a workable framework. Its incompleteness guarantees disenfranchisement and would result in a Parliament that is fundamentally inconsistent with the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s mandate of fixed and proportionate representation.