Ali, Jr. vs. Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament

A redistricting law that takes effect after the election period has begun, by mandating the transfer of municipalities and thereby compelling the alteration or creation of precincts, directly contravenes Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996) and is void for exceeding the legislative authority of the autonomous region, which is subject to the Constitution and national laws. The Bangsamoro Organic Law’s requirement that each parliamentary district comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction is mandatory; a districting scheme that isolates certain municipalities or barangays from the rest of the district violates this requirement and renders the redistricting invalid. The invalidation of a later districting law does not automatically revive an earlier law that has been rendered inoperative by a supervening constitutional infirmity.

Following the ratification of Republic Act No. 11054 (the Bangsamoro Organic Law) in 2018, the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) served as the interim government of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The BTA enacted Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 58 (BAA 58) on February 28, 2024, apportioning 32 parliamentary districts, including seven for the Province of Sulu. On September 9, 2024, the Supreme Court in Province of Sulu v. Medialdea declared Sulu’s inclusion in the BARMM unconstitutional, removing the province and its seven district seats from the region. This ruling necessitated a legislative reallocation. For nearly a year, no redistricting law was enacted. The first parliamentary elections, originally set for 2022 and postponed to May 2025, were further reset to October 13, 2025 by Republic Act No. 12123. The COMELEC began its preparations under the assumption that BAA 58, minus the Sulu seats, governed the elections. On August 14, 2025, the election period commenced. On August 19, 2025, the BTA passed Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 77 (BAA 77), which was signed on August 28, 2025—the same day the COMELEC resumed printing ballots based on BAA 58.

• The Bangsamoro Legal Framework: The Bangsamoro Organic Law (R.A. No. 11054) established the BARMM and provided for an interim Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) pending the first regular election of the Bangsamoro Parliament. The BTA was vested with the power to enact priority legislation, including the Bangsamoro Electoral Code and the determination of parliamentary districts. The Bangsamoro Parliament is to be composed of 80 members: not more than 40% from single-member parliamentary districts elected by direct plurality vote, 50% from regional political parties, and the remainder from reserved sectoral seats. Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law requires that each district “shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction” and have a population of at least 100,000. Article IV, Section 4 mandates that the Bangsamoro electoral system shall be consistent with national election laws.

• BAA 58 and the Province of Sulu Decision: BAA 58, enacted on February 28, 2024, apportioned 32 parliamentary districts among the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao del Norte, Maguindanao del Sur, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Cotabato City, and special geographic areas, allocating seven seats to Sulu. On September 9, 2024, the Supreme Court in Province of Sulu v. Medialdea declared the inclusion of Sulu in the BARMM unconstitutional, stripping Sulu of its seven district seats and leaving those seats vacant. The decision became final on November 26, 2024.

• The Enactment of BAA 77: Despite the need to fill the void created by Sulu’s exclusion, the BTA did not pass a redistricting law until August 19, 2025—five days after the start of the election period fixed by COMELEC Resolution No. 11149. Parliamentary Bill Nos. 347 and 351 were consolidated, and BAA 77 was signed by Interim Chief Minister Abdulraof A. Macacua on August 28, 2025. The Speaker of the BTA issued a notice stating that the signature on BAA 77 was unauthorized and that the measure was procedurally defective, but the law was published on the Bangsamoro Official Gazette website the same day.

• Redistricting Scheme of BAA 77: BAA 77 increased the number of parliamentary districts in the remaining BARMM areas to reallocate the seven seats lost from Sulu. The district counts were raised as follows: Basilan from 3 to 4; Lanao del Sur from 8 to 9; Maguindanao del Norte from 4 to 5; Maguindanao del Sur from 4 to 5; Tawi-Tawi from 3 to 4; Cotabato City from 2 to 3; and special geographic areas from 1 to 2. The reapportionment involved transferring municipalities and barangays between districts, which resulted in the isolation of the Municipality of Tagoloan II in the Second District of Lanao del Sur (cut off from other municipalities in that district), the Municipality of Sultan Mastura in the Third District of Maguindanao del Norte (physically separated from the rest of the district), and Barangay Poblacion VII in the First District of Cotabato City (geographically detached from the other barangays in the district).

• Controversial Provisions: Section 3 stated that should Sulu rejoin the BARMM, “Congress may allocate at least seven Parliamentary District Seats.” Section 4 authorized the President to appoint an “Interim Parliamentary District Representative” for any new district created after the deadline for filing Certificates of Candidacy. Section 5 provided that candidates who had already filed their COCs would retain their candidacy in the district where they originally filed, even if their barangay or municipality had been reassigned to a different district under the new law.

• Electoral Timeline and COMELEC’s Impossible Position: The COMELEC had prepared the automated election system under the post-Province of Sulu assumption that BAA 58, without the Sulu seats, governed the elections. Ballots were printed based on that configuration. When BAA 77 took effect during the election period, the COMELEC was confronted with an operational impossibility: enforcing the new redistricting would have required—within less than a month—updating the Project of Precincts, reprinting ballots, reconfiguring vote-counting machines, rerouting canvassing flows, retraining electoral boards and support staff, and redeploying Starlink and other infrastructure across remote areas. After the Supreme Court issued a TRO against BAA 77, the COMELEC suspended all election preparations, asserting that it was left without a governing districting law and could not lawfully revert to BAA 58 without a judicial directive.

• Petitioners’ Background: Petitioners Ali, Amelia, and Magon are registered voters in Maguindanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, affected by BAA 77’s redistricting. Petitioners Macapaar, Macacuna, Amate, Eppie, Marangit, and Mamutuk are registered voters in the newly reconstituted parliamentary districts. Ali and Macapaar are nominees of the United Bangsamoro Justice Party, and Amate is a nominee of the Progresibong Bangsamoro Party for the October 13, 2025 elections.

• Violation of the Voter’s Registration Act: Petitioners argued that BAA 77, by redistricting municipalities during the election period, altered existing precincts and created new ones in direct contravention of Section 5 of R.A. No. 8189, which prohibits the alteration of precincts or the establishment of new precincts once the election period has begun.

• Non-Compliance with Contiguity, Compactness, and Adjacency Requirements: Petitioners maintained that the redistricting under BAA 77 isolated specific municipalities and barangays from the rest of their assigned districts—particularly Tagoloan II in Lanao del Sur, Sultan Mastura in Maguindanao del Norte, and Barangay Poblacion VII in Cotabato City—violating the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s mandatory requirement that each district comprise contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory, and thereby constituted unlawful gerrymandering.

• Unlawful Expansion of Presidential Appointment Power: Petitioners contended that Section 4 of BAA 77, allowing the President to appoint interim district representatives, violates the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s explicit mandate that parliamentary district representatives must be elected by direct plurality vote and undermines the constitutional principle that members of the autonomous legislative assembly must be elective and representative of the constituent political units.

• Improper Congressional Allocation of Seats: Petitioners asserted that Section 3 of BAA 77, which directs that Congress “may allocate at least seven Parliamentary District Seats” upon Sulu’s re-entry, is invalid because it purports to make Congress the subject of regional legislation in violation of the Constitution’s grant of exclusive legislative power to Congress, and it amends the Bangsamoro Organic Law by transferring the power of apportionment from the Bangsamoro Parliament to Congress.

• Severance of Residency and Representation: Petitioners argued that Section 5 of BAA 77, which freezes candidacies in the original districts despite the reassignment of barangays or municipalities, forces candidates to run in districts where they may no longer be registered voters or actual residents, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal access to public service opportunities and the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s residency qualification for candidates.

• One Subject-One Title Rule: Macapaar et al. argued that BAA 77 embraces more than one subject because Sections 3, 4, and 5 are not germane to the singular subject of reconstituting parliamentary districts expressed in its title, in violation of Article VII, Section 25(a) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law.

• Invalid Publication: Macapaar et al. contended that BAA 77 was not published in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code, as publication on the official website of the Bangsamoro Gazette does not constitute the publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation required for its effectivity.

• COMELEC’s Position: The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, did not defend the constitutionality of BAA 77. It explained that the TRO against BAA 77 did not explicitly revive BAA 58 and that the COMELEC was left without a definitive statutory or judicial anchor to continue election preparations. It prayed for the immediate resolution of the consolidated cases to remove uncertainty and to enable it to fulfill its constitutional and legal mandate.

• The Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) did not file a comment despite being given a non-extendible period to do so.

• Precinct Alteration During Election Period: Whether BAA 77 violated Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act (R.A. No. 8189) by altering or creating precincts after the election period had commenced.

• Contiguous, Compact, and Adjacent Territory: Whether the redistricting under Section 2 of BAA 77 complied with the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s requirement that each parliamentary district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction.

• Presidential Appointment of Interim District Representatives: Whether Section 4 of BAA 77, authorizing the President to appoint interim parliamentary district representatives, is consistent with the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s mandate that district representatives be elected and with the constitutional principles of representative democracy.

• Congressional Allocation of Seats: Whether Section 3 of BAA 77, directing Congress to allocate parliamentary district seats, is constitutional, given that legislative power is vested exclusively in Congress and the Bangsamoro Organic Law assigns the power of apportionment to the Bangsamoro Parliament.

• Freezing of Candidacies and Residence Requirement: Whether Section 5 of BAA 77, which allows candidates to retain their candidacy in the original district even after their barangay or municipality is reassigned, violates the constitutional and statutory requirement that a candidate for district representative must be a registered voter and resident of the district.

• One Subject-One Title Rule: Whether BAA 77 embraces more than one subject in violation of Article VII, Section 25(a) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law.

• Publication: Whether BAA 77 is ineffective for lack of proper publication under Article 2 of the Civil Code.

• Revival of BAA 58: Whether the invalidation of BAA 77 automatically revives BAA 58, and whether BAA 58 can serve as the governing law for the October 13, 2025 Bangsamoro parliamentary elections.

• Precinct Alteration During Election Period: BAA 77 was enacted on August 19, 2025, five days after the election period officially began on August 14, 2025. Its municipal reapportionment inevitably led to the alteration of barangay and precinct configurations, triggering the need to update precinct maps, reprint ballots, reroute canvassing, and reorganize electoral boards—all of which are operational necessities. This directly contravened the express prohibition in Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act, which forbids any alteration of precincts or creation of new ones at the start of the election period. The Bangsamoro Government’s legislative authority is categorically limited by Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution and Article IV, Section 4 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, which require consistency with national election laws. BAA 77’s enactment during the election period thus exceeded the BTA’s legislative jurisdiction, rendering the entire law void.

• Contiguous, Compact, and Adjacent Territory: BAA 77’s redistricting resulted in the isolation of the Municipality of Tagoloan II from the rest of the Second District of Lanao del Sur, the Municipality of Sultan Mastura from the other municipalities in the Third District of Maguindanao del Norte, and Barangay Poblacion VII from the remaining barangays of the First District of Cotabato City. Under Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, each district must be, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent. This requirement, similar to the constitutional mandate for national legislative districts, forbids gerrymandering and the formation of districts out of separate, non-contiguous territories. The transfer of municipalities and barangays that left certain local government units geographically detached from their new districts rendered the redistricting invalid for failure to satisfy these mandatory territorial standards.

• Presidential Appointment of Interim District Representatives: Section 4 of BAA 77 purports to allow the President to appoint “Interim Parliamentary District Representatives” with full rights, duties, and privileges of elected members for new districts created after the COC filing deadline. This provision conflicts with Article VII, Section 7(b) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, which unequivocally requires parliamentary district representatives to be elected by direct plurality vote. It also violates Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution, which mandates that the legislative assembly of an autonomous region be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The only presidential appointment power recognized under the Bangsamoro Organic Law is the interim selection of the initial BTA members under Article XVI, Section 2—a transitional authority that ceases upon the commencement of the regular parliamentary system. Inserting unelected legislators into the Bangsamoro Parliament distorts representative democracy and exceeds the delegated legislative authority of the BTA, thus rendering Section 4 unconstitutional.

• Congressional Allocation of Seats: Section 3 of BAA 77 states that upon Sulu’s reintegration, “Congress may allocate at least seven Parliamentary District Seats.” This provision is doubly infirm. First, it seeks to make the Congress the subject of a regional law, in derogation of the Constitution’s vesting of exclusive national legislative power in Congress. Second, it divests the Bangsamoro Parliament of the power to reconstitute parliamentary districts, a power expressly assigned to it by Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law. The phrase “at least seven” further imposes a mandatory floor that constrains the apportionment discretion of the legislative body, predetermining the number of seats without regard to the objective standards of population and territory. Whether read as advisory (surplusage) or mandatory (an improper delegation), the provision cannot stand; it violates the constitutional allocation of powers and unlawfully amends the organic law. Section 3 was accordingly declared void.

• Freezing of Candidacies and Residence Requirement: Section 5 of BAA 77 allows candidates who filed their COCs to retain their candidacy in the original district regardless of where their barangay or municipality is reassigned. This arrangement severs the constitutionally and statutorily required link between residence, voter registration, and candidacy. Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution and Article VII, Section 12 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law require that a candidate for district representative be a registered voter in and a resident of the district for at least one year. By compelling candidates to run in districts where they may no longer be residents or registered voters, Section 5 undercuts the purpose of the residence requirement—ensuring that the representative is a genuine member of the community. Voters are likewise deprived of the opportunity to elect a representative who is actually a constituent of their district. The provision therefore conflicts with both the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the Constitution and was declared unconstitutional.

• One Subject-One Title Rule: The “one subject-one title” requirement under Article VII, Section 25(a) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law is interpreted reasonably and not unduly technically. Sections 3 (transitory provision for Sulu’s return), 4 (interim representation), and 5 (effect on candidacies) all relate to the reconstitution of parliamentary districts, the general object of BAA 77. The requirement is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to reasonably include the general object of the statute; it need not express every detail. Hence, no violation of Article VII, Section 25(a) was found, although the intrinsic validity of those provisions was separately impugned on other grounds.

• Publication: The validity of publication in the Bangsamoro Gazette and on its official website was not definitively resolved. The Court recognized that under Tañada v. Tuvera, the legislature determines the proper modes of publication, and no law expressly permits publication solely on a website. However, because BAA 77 was invalidated on other substantive grounds, the publication issue was not critical to the disposition. Petitioners also did not prove that BAA 77 was not printed in the Bangsamoro Gazette. Thus, the law was not declared void based on improper publication.

• Revival of BAA 58: The invalidation of BAA 77 does not automatically revive BAA 58. The Court applied the settled doctrine in Tatad v. Secretary of Energy that the declaration of a law as unconstitutional restores the status quo ante. That rule, however, presupposes that the prior law is valid, complete, and capable of implementation. After Province of Sulu excluded Sulu from the BARMM, BAA 58 became inoperative because it apportioned seats on the premise that Sulu formed part of the region. Using BAA 58 would result in only 25 district seats being filled—seven fewer than the 32 district seats required—and would contravene the Bangsamoro Organic Law’s mandate of an 80-member Parliament with a delicate balance among district, regional party, and sectoral representatives. Both BAA 58 and BAA 77 fail to achieve the full complement of 80 members: BAA 58 due to the structural void left by Sulu, and BAA 77 because Section 5 precludes voting for the reallocated seven seats. No law permits a piecemeal election of only a portion of the Parliament. Since revival of BAA 58 would reinstate a constitutionally infirm and legally inoperable statute, the automatic revival doctrine does not apply. Both BAA 58 and BAA 77 were thus declared unconstitutional.

• Prohibition on Alteration of Precincts During the Election Period (Section 5, R.A. No. 8189) — Under Section 5 of the Voter’s Registration Act, “[n]o territory comprising an election precinct shall be altered or a new precinct be established at the start of the election period.” A redistricting measure that mandates the transfer of municipalities and thereby compels the reconfiguration of precinct boundaries, reprinting of ballots, and reassignment of voters to different districts amounts to an alteration of precincts prohibited during the election period. The legislative authority of the Bangsamoro Government is limited by the Constitution and national laws; thus, a redistricting law enacted after the election period has begun is void for exceeding the BTA’s legislative competence.

• Redistricting Requirements: Contiguous, Compact, and Adjacent Territory — Article VII, Section 10 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, echoing Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution, requires that each parliamentary district “shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territorial jurisdiction.” A district that includes a municipality or barangay geographically detached from the rest of the district violates this requirement, which is intended to prevent gerrymandering—the formation of legislative districts out of separate territories for the purpose of favoring a candidate or party. The inclusion of isolated local government units renders the redistricting void for failure to satisfy these mandatory territorial standards.

• Non-Automatic Revival of an Inoperative Prior Law — While the general rule is that the declaration of a law as unconstitutional revives the law it repealed (Tatad v. Secretary of Energy), this doctrine does not apply where the prior law itself has been rendered void, unconstitutional, or impracticable by a supervening event. The automatic revival rule rests on the assumption that the prior law is valid and capable of implementation. When revival would give rise to constitutional or practical impossibility, the Court may declare that invalidation of the repealing law does not automatically revive the earlier statute. This exception prevents the re-emergence of defective legal frameworks.

• Mandatory Elective Character of the Bangsamoro Parliament — Under Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution and Article VII, Section 7(b) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, members of the autonomous legislative assembly must be elective and representative of the constituent political units. District representatives must be elected by direct plurality vote by registered voters in their districts. The law does not contemplate the appointment of interim parliamentary district representatives by the President outside the specific transitional authority granted in Article XVI, Section 2 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law for the initial BTA members. A provision vesting in the President the power to appoint legislators with full rights and privileges alters the representative character of the Parliament and is unconstitutional.

• Requirement of Residence for Candidacy — Residence is a substantive qualification for candidacy in an elective office, designed to ensure that candidates are genuinely part of, familiar with, and accountable to the community they seek to represent. Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution and Article VII, Section 12 of the Bangsamoro Organic Law require that a candidate for district representative be a registered voter in and a resident of the district. A law that severs the link between residence, voter registration, and representation—by allowing candidates to run in districts where they no longer reside or are registered—undermines the democratic character of elections and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal access to public service opportunities.

• “One Subject-One Title” under the Bangsamoro Organic Law — Article VII, Section 25(a) of the Bangsamoro Organic Law requires that every bill embrace only one subject expressed in its title. This requirement is interpreted reasonably and not unduly technically. It is sufficient that the title be comprehensive enough to reasonably include the general object of the statute; it need not set forth every end and means necessary for its accomplishment. Provisions relating to the main subject—even if they address transitory, procedural, or incidental matters—do not violate the rule as long as they are germane to the general subject.

• “An election held in haste defiles the people’s right to vote. The electoral process is not merely a perfunctory formality. Rather, it provides an avenue for a genuine and meaningful exercise of democracy.” — This passage articulates the Court’s consistent posture that electoral legitimacy depends on orderly, well-prepared conduct, not merely on the formal scheduling of a ballot.

• “The people’s right of suffrage is not vindicated by elections that may be marked with legal infirmities. It is safeguarded only when the electoral process is carried out with certainty, order, and legitimacy.” — The statement underpins the Court’s refusal to direct the COMELEC to proceed with the October 13, 2025 elections under either BAA 77 or BAA 58, given the legal vacuum and operational impossibility.

• “Stability, not just expediency, must govern the Court’s hand in so momentous an undertaking as the first parliamentary elections of the Bangsamoro.” — Emphasizing the gravity of the first Bangsamoro parliamentary elections, the Court chose to prioritize institutional certainty over a rushed electoral exercise that would risk disenfranchisement and subsequent nullification.

• “In this regard, it is necessary to consider the validity of the creation of the Bangsamoro Gazette, and whether the publication on the official website of the Bangsamoro Gazette is an acceptable mode of publication for purposes of determining the effectivity of the regional laws in the BARMM.” — While not resolving the issue, the Court signaled that the legislature, not the judiciary, should prescribe the acceptable modes of publication for regional laws, consistent with Tañada v. Tuvera.

• “The Court cannot be compelled to perpetuate an infirm statute simply because its repealing law was declared to be unconstitutional. … [W]here the revival of the prior law would itself give rise to constitutional or practical impossibility, this Court may, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, declare that the invalidation of a repealing law does not automatically revive the earlier statute.” — This passage establishes a significant qualification to the automatic revival doctrine, recognizing the limits of the rule when the prior law has become inoperative due to supervening events.

• Province of Sulu v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 242255, September 9, 2024 — Controlling precedent that declared the inclusion of the Province of Sulu in the BARMM unconstitutional, creating the vacancy in parliamentary district seats that BAA 77 sought to address.

• Sinsuat v. Ebrahim, G.R. No. 271741, August 20, 2024 — Followed for the requisites of judicial review and standing of registered voters in affected municipalities to challenge laws creating or redistricting political units; also cited for the interpretation of the one subject-one title rule.

• Herrera v. COMELEC, 376 Phil. 443 (1999) — Applied for the definition of “contiguous” and “adjacent” as “adjoining, nearby, abutting, having a common border, connected, and/or touching along boundaries often for considerable distances,” in the context of legislative districts.

• Navarro v. Ermita, 626 Phil. 23 (2010) — Cited for the definition of gerrymandering and the constitutional requirement that each legislative district comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.

• Tañada v. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528 (1986) — Invoked for the doctrine that publication is indispensable for the effectivity of laws and that the legislature must determine the proper modes of publication.

• Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 347 Phil. 1 (1997) — Relied upon for the general rule that the declaration of a law as unconstitutional revives the law it repealed, but distinguished by the Court in establishing the exception where the prior law is itself inoperative.

• Reburiano v. De Vera, 877 Phil. 880 (2020) — Cited for the rule that courts have ample authority to rule on matters not raised in the pleadings if such issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the pleaded issues.

• Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC, 392 Phil. 342 (2000) — Followed for the principle that residence as a qualification for elective office is designed to ensure that candidates are familiar with the needs and conditions of the community they seek to represent.

• Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, 318 Phil. 329 (1995) — Cited to reinforce that the purpose of the residence requirement is to prevent a stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the community from seeking an elective office.

• Article X, Section 20, 1987 Constitution — Limits the legislative powers of autonomous regions to the territorial jurisdiction of the region and subjects them to the provisions of the Constitution and national laws. Applied to hold that BAA 77’s alteration of precincts during the election period exceeded the BTA’s legislative authority because it contravened R.A. No. 8189, a national law.

• Article X, Section 18, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that the organic act for an autonomous region establish a government with an executive department and a legislative assembly, “both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units.” Applied to invalidate Section 4 of BAA 77, which authorized the President to appoint interim parliamentary district representatives.

• Article VI, Section 5(3) and Section 6, 1987 Constitution — The first requires that each legislative district shall comprise contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory; the second requires that a legislative representative be a registered voter in the district and a resident thereof. Used as the constitutional backdrop for the similar requirements in the Bangsamoro Organic Law.

• Article II, Section 26, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees equal access to opportunities for public service. Raised by petitioners and considered in relation to the residency and candidacy distortions caused by Section 5 of BAA 77.

• Article VII, Sections 6, 7(b), 10, 12, and 20, and Article XVI, Sections 1, 2, 4, and 13, Bangsamoro Organic Law (R.A. No. 11054) — Established the composition of the Bangsamoro Parliament at 80 members, the elective character of district seats, the requirement of contiguous, compact, and adjacent districts, the residency qualification, the manner of filling vacancies, and the BTA’s legislative priorities. Applied to demonstrate that neither BAA 58 nor BAA 77 could fulfill the organic law’s scheme and that the specific challenged provisions contradicted these mandates.

• Section 5, Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996) — Prohibits the alteration of any territory comprising an election precinct or the establishment of a new precinct at the start of the election period. The central provision upon which BAA 77 was declared void.

• Article 2, Civil Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987 — Prescribes that laws take effect 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless otherwise provided. Discussed but not determinatively resolved concerning the validity of publication in the Bangsamoro Gazette’s official website.

• Article VII, Section 25(a) and (e) and Book I, Chapter 3, Sections 12 and 14, BAA 13 (Bangsamoro Administrative Code) — Provided the “one subject-one title” requirement for Bangsamoro bills and the establishment and publication rules for the Bangsamoro Gazette. Applied to uphold the one-subject rule and to frame the publication inquiry.

Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Singh, and Villanueva, JJ., concurred. Chief Justice Gesmundo was on official leave. Justice Caguioa was on official business but left a vote.

• LEONEN, A.C.J., filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Rosario and Kho, Jr. The details of the dissent are not reproduced in the majority decision.