G.R.$No.$92299$$$$$$$$$$$$$April$19,$1991!

REYNALDO$
R.$
SAN$
JUAN,!petitioner,!!
vs.!
CIVIL$SERVICE$COMMISSION,$DEPARTMENT$OF$BUDGET$AND$MANAGEMENT$and$CECILIA$ALMAJOSE,respondents.!
GUTIERREZ,$JR.,$J.:!
In!this!petition!for!certiorari!pursuant!to!Section!7,!Article!IX!(A)!of!the!present!Constitution,!the!petitioner!Governor!of!the!Province!
of!Rizal,!prays!for!the!nullification!of!Resolution!No.!89D868!of!the!Civil!Service!Commission!(CSC)!dated!November!21,!1989!and!its!
Resolution!No.!90D150!dated!February!9,!1990.!
The!dispositive!portion!of!the!questioned!Resolution!reads:!
WHEREFORE,! foregoing! premises! considered,! the! Commission! resolved! to! dismiss,! as! it! hereby! dismisses! the! appeal! of!
Governor!Reynaldo!San!Juan!of!Rizal.!Accordingly,!the!approved!appointment!of!Ms.!Cecilia!Almajose!as!Provincial!Budget!
Officer!of!Rizal,!is!upheld.!(Rollo,!p.!32)!
The! subsequent! Resolution! No.! 90D150! reiterates! CSC's! position! upholding! the! private! respondent's! appointment! by! denying! the!
petitioner's!motion!for!reconsideration!for!lack!of!merit.!
The!antecedent!facts!of!the!case!are!as!follows:!
On!March!22,!1988,!the!position!of!Provincial!Budget!Officer!(PBO)!for!the!province!of!Rizal!was!left!vacant!by!its!former!holder,!a!
certain!Henedima!del!Rosario.!
In!a!letter!dated!April!18,!1988,!the!petitioner!informed!Director!Reynaldo!Abella!of!the!Department!of!Budget!and!Management!
(DBM)!Region!IV!that!Ms.!Dalisay!Santos!assumed!office!as!Acting!PBO!since!March!22,!1988!pursuant!to!a!Memorandum!issued!by!
the!petitioner!who!further!requested!Director!Abella!to!endorse!the!appointment!of!the!said!Ms.!Dalisay!Santos!to!the!contested!
position!of!PBO!of!Rizal.!Ms.!Dalisay!Santos!was!then!Municipal!Budget!Officer!of!Taytay,!Rizal!before!she!discharged!the!functions!of!
acting!PBO.!

In! a! Memorandum! dated! July! 26,! 1988! addressed! to! the! DBM! Secretary,! then! Director! Abella! of! Region! IV! recommended! the!
appointment!of!the!private!respondent!as!PBO!of!Rizal!on!the!basis!of!a!comparative!study!of!all!Municipal!Budget!Officers!of!the!
said!province!which!included!three!nominees!of!the!petitioner.!According!to!Abella,!the!private!respondent!was!the!most!qualified!
since!she!was!the!only!Certified!Public!Accountant!among!the!contenders.!
On!August!1,!1988,!DBM!Undersecretary!Nazario!S.!Cabuquit,!Jr.!signed!the!appointment!papers!of!the!private!respondent!as!PBO!of!
Rizal!upon!the!aforestated!recommendation!of!Abella.!
In!a!letter!dated!August!3,!1988!addressed!to!Secretary!Carague,!the!petitioner!reiterated!his!request!for!the!appointment!of!Dalisay!
Santos!to!the!contested!position!unaware!of!the!earlier!appointment!made!by!Undersecretary!Cabuquit.!
On! August! 31,! 1988,! DBM! Regional! Director! Agripino! G.! Galvez! wrote! the! petitioner! that! Dalisay! Santos! and! his! other!
recommendees! did! not! meet! the! minimum! requirements! under! Local! Budget! Circular! No.! 31! for! the! position! of! a! local! budget!
officer.! Director! Galvez! whether! or! not! through! oversight! further! required! the! petitioner! to! submit! at! least! three! other! qualified!
nominees!who!are!qualified!for!the!position!of!PBO!of!Rizal!for!evaluation!and!processing.!
On!November!2,!1988,!the!petitioner!after!having!been!informed!of!the!private!respondent's!appointment!wrote!Secretary!Carague!
protesting!against!the!said!appointment!on!the!grounds!that!Cabuquit!as!DBM!Undersecretary!is!not!legally!authorized!to!appoint!
the!PBO;!that!the!private!respondent!lacks!the!required!three!years!work!experience!as!provided!in!Local!Budget!Circular!No.!31;!
and! that! under! Executive! Order! No.! 112,! it! is! the! Provincial! Governor,! not! the! Regional! Director! or! a! Congressman,! who! has! the!
power!to!recommend!nominees!for!the!position!of!PBO.!
On! January! 9,! 1989! respondent! DBM,! through! its! Director! of! the! Bureau! of! Legal! &! Legislative! Affairs! (BLLA)! Virgilio! A.! Afurung,!
issued!a!Memorandum!ruling!that!the!petitioner's!letterDprotest!is!not!meritorious!considering!that!public!respondent!DBM!validly!
exercised! its! prerogative! in! fillingDup! the! contested! position! since! none! of! the! petitioner's! nominees! met! the! prescribed!
requirements.!
On!January!27,!1989,!the!petitioner!moved!for!a!reconsideration!of!the!BLLA!ruling.!
On!February!28,!1989,!the!DBM!Secretary!denied!the!petitioner's!motion!for!reconsideration.!

On!March!27,!1989,!the!petitioner!wrote!public!respondent!CSC!protesting!against!the!appointment!of!the!private!respondent!and!
reiterating!his!position!regarding!the!matter.!
Subsequently,! public! respondent! CSC! issued! the! questioned! resolutions! which! prompted! the! petitioner! to! submit! before! us! the!
following!assignment!of!errors:!
A.!THE!CSC!ERRED!IN!UPHOLDING!THE!APPOINTMENT!BY!DBM!ASSISTANT!SECRETARY!CABUQUIT!OF!CECILIA!ALMAJOSE!AS!
PBO!OF!RIZAL.!
B.!THE!CSC!ERRED!IN!HOLDING!THAT!CECILIA!ALMA!JOSE!POSSESSES!ALL!THE!REQUIRED!QUALIFICATIONS.!
C.!THE!CSC!ERRED!IN!DECLARING!THAT!PETITIONER'S!NOMINEES!ARE!NOT!QUALIFIED!TO!THE!SUBJECT!POSITION.!
D.!THE!CSC!AND!THE!DBM!GRAVELY!ABUSED!THEIR!DISCRETION!IN!NOT!ALLOWING!PETITIONER!TO!SUBMIT!NEW!NOMINEES!
WHO!COULD!MEET!THE!REQUIRED!QUALIFICATION!(Petition,!pp.!7D8,Rollo,!pp.!15D16)!
All!the!assigned!errors!relate!to!the!issue!of!whether!or!not!the!private!respondent!is!lawfully!entitled!to!discharge!the!functions!of!
PBO! of! Rizal! pursuant! to! the! appointment! made! by! public! respondent! DBM's! Undersecretary! upon! the! recommendation! of! then!
Director!Abella!of!DBM!Region!IV.!
The! petitioner's! arguments! rest! on! his! contention! that! he! has! the! sole! right! and! privilege! to! recommend! the! nominees! to! the!
position!of!PBO!and!that!the!appointee!should!come!only!from!his!nominees.!In!support!thereof,!he!invokes!Section!1!of!Executive!
Order!No.!112!which!provides!that:!
Sec.!1.!All!budget!officers!of!provinces,!cities!and!municipalities!shall!be!appointed!henceforth!by!the!Minister!of!Budget!and!
Management!upon!recommendation!of!the!local!chief!executive!concerned,!subject!to!civil!service!law,!rules!and!regulations,!
and! they! shall! be! placed! under! the! administrative! control! and! technical! supervision! of! the! Ministry! of! Budget! and!
Management.!
The!petitioner!maintains!that!the!appointment!of!the!private!respondent!to!the!contested!position!was!made!in!derogation!of!the!
provision!so!that!both!the!public!respondents!committed!grave!abuse!of!discretion!in!upholding!Almajose's!appointment.!

There! is! no! question! that! under! Section! 1! of! Executive! Order! No.! 112! the! petitioner's! power! to! recommend! is! subject! to! the!
qualifications!prescribed!by!existing!laws!for!the!position!of!PBO.!Consequently,!in!the!event!that!the!recommendations!made!by!the!
petitioner!fall!short!of!the!required!standards,!the!appointing!authority,!the!Minister!(now!Secretary)!of!public!respondent!DBM!is!
expected!to!reject!the!same.!
In!the!event!that!the!Governor!recommends!an!unqualified!person,!is!the!Department!Head!free!to!appoint!anyone!he!fancies!?!This!
is!the!issue!before!us.!
Before!the!promulgation!of!Executive!Order!No.!112!on!December!24,!1986,!Batas!Pambansa!Blg.!337,!otherwise!known!as!the!Local!
Government!Code!vested!upon!the!Governor,!subject!to!civil!service!rules!and!regulations,!the!power!to!appoint!the!PBO!(Sec.!216,!
subparagraph!(1),!BP!337).!The!Code!further!enumerated!the!qualifications!for!the!position!of!PBO.!Thus,!Section!216,!subparagraph!
(2)!of!the!same!code!states!that:!
(2)!No!person!shall!be!appointed!provincial!budget!officer!unless!he!is!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines,!of!good!moral!character,!a!
holder! of! a! degree! preferably! in! law,! commerce,! public! administration! or! any! related! course! from! a! recognized! college! or!
university,!a!first!grade!civil!service!eligibility!or!its!equivalent,!and!has!acquired!at!least!five!years!experience!in!budgeting!or!
in!any!related!field.!
The!petitioner!contends!that!since!the!appointing!authority!with!respect!to!the!Provincial!Budget!Officer!of!Rizal!was!vested!in!him!
before,! then,! the! real! intent! behind! Executive! Order! No.! 112! in! empowering! him! to! recommend! nominees! to! the! position! of!
Provincial! Budget! Officer! is! to! make! his! recommendation! part! and! parcel! of! the! appointment! process.! He! states! that! the! phrase!
"upon!recommendation!of!the!local!chief!executive!concerned"!must!be!given!mandatory!application!in!consonance!with!the!state!
policy!of!local!autonomy!as!guaranteed!by!the!1987!Constitution!under!Art.!II,!Sec.!25!and!Art.!X,!Sec.!2!thereof.!He!further!argues!
that!his!power!to!recommend!cannot!validly!be!defeated!by!a!mere!administrative!issuance!of!public!respondent!DBM!reserving!to!
itself! the! right! to! fillDup! any! existing! vacancy! in! case! the! petitioner's! nominees! do! not! meet! the! qualification! requirements! as!
embodied!in!public!respondent!DBM's!Local!Budget!Circular!No.!31!dated!February!9,!1988.!
The!questioned!ruling!is!justified!by!the!public!respondent!CSC!as!follows:!
As!required!by!said!E.O.!No.!112,!the!DBM!Secretary!may!choose!from!among!the!recommendees!of!the!Provincial!Governor!
who! are! thus! qualified! and! eligible! for! appointment! to! the! position! of! the! PBO! of! Rizal.! Notwithstanding,! the!
recommendation! of! the! local! chief! executive! is! merely! directory! and! not! a! conditionsine, qua, non!to! the! exercise! by! the!

Secretary!of!DBM!of!his!appointing!prerogative.!To!rule!otherwise!would!in!effect!give!the!law!or!E.O.!No.!112!a!different!
interpretation!or!construction!not!intended!therein,!taking!into!consideration!that!said!officer!has!been!nationalized!and!is!
directly!under!the!control!and!supervision!of!the!DBM!Secretary!or!through!his!duly!authorized!representative.!It!cannot!be!
gainsaid!that!said!national!officer!has!a!similar!role!in!the!local!government!unit,!only!on!another!area!or!concern,!to!that!of!a!
Commission! on! Audit! resident! auditor.! Hence,! to! preserve! and! maintain! the! independence! of! said! officer! from! the! local!
government!unit,!he!must!be!primarily!the!choice!of!the!national!appointing!official,!and!the!exercise!thereof!must!not!be!
unduly! hampered! or! interfered! with,! provided! the! appointee! finally! selected! meets! the! requirements! for! the! position! in!
accordance!with!prescribed!Civil!Service!Law,!Rules!and!Regulations.!In!other!words,!the!appointing!official!is!not!restricted!
or!circumscribed!to!the!list!submitted!or!recommended!by!the!local!chief!executive!in!the!final!selection!of!an!appointee!for!
the! position.! He! may! consider! other! nominees! for! the! position!vis, a, vis!the! nominees! of! the! local! chief! executive.! (CSC!
Resolution!No.!89D868,!p.!2;!Rollo,!p.!31)!
The!issue!before!the!Court!is!not!limited!to!the!validity!of!the!appointment!of!one!Provincial!Budget!Officer.!The!tug!of!war!between!
the!Secretary!of!Budget!and!Management!and!the!Governor!of!the!premier!province!of!Rizal!over!a!seemingly!innocuous!position!
involves!the!application!of!a!most!important!constitutional!policy!and!principle,!that!of!local!autonomy.!We!have!to!obey!the!clear!
mandate!on!local!autonomy.!Where!a!law!is!capable!of!two!interpretations,!one!in!favor!of!centralized!power!in!Malacaang!and!the!
other!beneficial!to!local!autonomy,!the!scales!must!be!weighed!in!favor!of!autonomy.!
The!exercise!by!local!governments!of!meaningful!power!has!been!a!national!goal!since!the!turn!of!the!century.!And!yet,!inspite!of!
constitutional!provisions!and,!as!in!this!case,!legislation!mandating!greater!autonomy!for!local!officials,!national!officers!cannot!seem!
to! let! go! of! centralized! powers.! They! deny! or! water! down! what! little! grants! of! autonomy! have! so! far! been! given! to! municipal!
corporations.!
President!McKinley's!Instructions!dated!April!7,!1900!to!the!Second!Philippine!Commission!ordered!the!new!Government!"to!devote!
their!attention!in!the!first!instance!to!the!establishment!of!municipal!governments!in!which!natives!of!the!Islands,!both!in!the!cities!
and!rural!communities,!shall!be!afforded!the!opportunity!to!manage!their!own!local!officers!to!the!fullest!extent!of!which!they!are!
capable!and!subject!to!the!least!degree!of!supervision!and!control!which!a!careful!study!of!their!capacities!and!observation!of!the!
workings!of!native!control!show!to!be!consistent!with!the!maintenance!of!law,!order!and!loyalty.!
In!this!initial!organic!act!for!the!Philippines,!the!Commission!which!combined!both!executive!and!legislative!powers!was!directed!to!
give!top!priority!to!making!local!autonomy!effective.!

The! 1935! Constitution! had! no! specific! article! on! local! autonomy.! However,! in! distinguishing! between! presidential! control! and!
supervision!as!follows:!
The!President!shall!have!control!of!all!the!executive!departments,!bureaus,!or!offices,!exercise!general!supervision!over!all!
local!governments!as!may!be!provided!by!law,!and!take!care!that!the!laws!be!faithfully!executed.!(Sec.!11,!Article!VII,!1935!
Constitution)!
the!Constitution!clearly!limited!the!executive!power!over!local!governments!to!"general!supervision!.!.!.!as!may!be!provided!by!law."!
The!President!controls!the!executive!departments.!He!has!no!such!power!over!local!governments.!He!has!only!supervision!and!that!
supervision!is!both!general!and!circumscribed!by!statute.!
In!Tecson,v.,Salas,!34!SCRA!275,!282!(1970),!this!Court!stated:!
.! .! .! Hebron! v.! Reyes,! (104! Phil.! 175! [1958])! with! the! then! Justice,! now! Chief! Justice,! Concepcion! as! theponente,! clarified!
matters.!As!was!pointed!out,!the!presidential!competence!is!not!even!supervision!in!general,!but!general!supervision!as!may!
be!provided!by!law.!He!could!not!thus!go!beyond!the!applicable!statutory!provisions,!which!bind!and!fetter!his!discretion!on!
the!matter.!Moreover,!as!had!been!earlier!ruled!in!an!opinion!penned!by!Justice!Padilla!in!Mondano!V.!Silvosa,!(97!Phil.!143!
[1955])! referred! to! by! the! present! Chief! Justice! in! his! opinion! in! the! Hebron! case,! supervision! goes! no! further! than!
"overseeing!or!the!power!or!authority!of!an!officer!to!see!that!subordinate!officers!perform!their!duties.!If!the!latter!fail!or!
neglect! to! fulfill! them! the! former! may! take! such! action! or! step! as! prescribed! by! law! to! make! them! perform! their! duties."!
(Ibid,!pp.!147D148)!Control,!on!the!other!hand,!"means!the!power!of!an!officer!to!alter!or!modify!or!nullify!or!set!aside!what!a!
subordinate!had!done!in!the!performance!of!their!duties!and!to!substitute!the!judgment!of!the!former!for!that!of!the!latter."!
It!would!follow!then,!according!to!the!present!Chief!Justice,!to!go!back!to!the!Hebron!opinion,!that!the!President!had!to!abide!
by!the!then!provisions!of!the!Revised!Administrative!Code!on!suspension!and!removal!of!municipal!officials,!there!being!no!
power!of!control!that!he!could!rightfully!exercise,!the!law!clearly!specifying!the!procedure!by!which!such!disciplinary!action!
would!be!taken.!
Pursuant!to!this!principle!under!the!1935!Constitution,!legislation!implementing!local!autonomy!was!enacted.!In!1959,!Republic!Act!
No.! 2264,! "An! Act! Amending! the! Law! Governing! Local! Governments! by! Increasing! Their! Autonomy! and! Reorganizing! Local!
Governments"! was! passed.! It! was! followed! in! 1967! when! Republic! Act! No.! 5185,! the! Decentralization! Law! was! enacted,! giving!
"further!autonomous!powers!to!local!governments!governments."!

The! provisions! of! the! 1973! Constitution! moved! the! country! further,! at! least! insofar! as! legal! provisions! are! concerned,! towards!
greater!autonomy.!It!provided!under!Article!II!as!a!basic!principle!of!government:!
Sec.!10.!The!State!shall!guarantee!and!promote!the!autonomy!of!local!government!units,!especially!the!barangay!to!ensure!
their!fullest!development!as!selfDreliant!communities.!
An!entire!article!on!Local!Government!was!incorporated!into!the!Constitution.!It!called!for!a!local!government!code!defining!more!
responsive!and!accountable!local!government!structures.!Any!creation,!merger,!abolition,!or!substantial!boundary!alteration!cannot!
be!done!except!in!accordance!with!the!local!government!code!and!upon!approval!by!a!plebiscite.!The!power!to!create!sources!of!
revenue!and!to!levy!taxes!was!specifically!settled!upon!local!governments.!
The!exercise!of!greater!local!autonomy!is!even!more!marked!in!the!present!Constitution.!
Article!II,!Section!25!on!State!Policies!provides:!
Sec.!25.!The!State!shall!ensure!the!autonomy!of!local!governments!
The!14!sections!in!Article!X!on!Local!Government!not!only!reiterate!earlier!doctrines!but!give!in!greater!detail!the!provisions!making!
local!autonomy!more!meaningful.!Thus,!Sections!2!and!3!of!Article!X!provide:!
Sec.!2.!The!territorial!and!political!subdivisions!shall!enjoy!local!autonomy.!
Sec.!3.!The!Congress!shall!enact!a!local!government!code!which!shall!provide!for!a!more!responsive!and!accountable!local!
government! structure! instituted! through! a! system! of! decentralization! with! effective! mechanisms! of! recall,! initiative,! and!
referendum,!allocate!among!the!different!local!government!units!their!powers,!responsibilities,!and!resources,!and!provide!
for!the!qualifications,!election,!appointment!and!removal,!term,!salaries,!powers!and!functions!and!duties!of!local!officials,!
and!all!other!matters!relating!to!the!organization!and!operation!of!the!local!units.!
When! the! Civil! Service! Commission! interpreted! the! recommending! power! of! the! Provincial! Governor! as! purely! directory,! it! went!
against!the!letter!and!spirit!of!the!constitutional!provisions!on!local!autonomy.!If!the!DBM!Secretary!jealously!hoards!the!entirety!of!
budgetary!powers!and!ignores!the!right!of!local!governments!to!develop!selfDreliance!and!resoluteness!in!the!handling!of!their!own!
funds,!the!goal!of!meaningful!local!autonomy!is!frustrated!and!set!back.!

The!right!given!by!Local!Budget!Circular!No.!31!which!states:!
Sec.!6.0!!The!DBM!reserves!the!right!to!fill!up!any!existing!vacancy!where!none!of!the!nominees!of!the!local!chief!executive!
meet!the!prescribed!requirements.!
is!ultra!vires!and!is,!accordingly,!set!aside.!The!DBM!may!appoint!only!from!the!list!of!qualified!recommendees!nominated!by!the!
Governor.! If! none! is! qualified,! he! must! return! the! list! of! nominees! to! the! Governor! explaining! why! no! one! meets! the! legal!
requirements!and!ask!for!new!recommendees!who!have!the!necessary!eligibilities!and!qualifications.!
The!PBO!is!expected!to!synchronize!his!work!with!DBM.!More!important,!however,!is!the!proper!administration!of!fiscal!affairs!at!
the!local!level.!Provincial!and!municipal!budgets!are!prepared!at!the!local!level!and!after!completion!are!forwarded!to!the!national!
officials!for!review.!They!are!prepared!by!the!local!officials!who!must!work!within!the!constraints!of!those!budgets.!They!are!not!
formulated!in!the!inner!sanctums!of!an!allDknowing!DBM!and!unilaterally!imposed!on!local!governments!whether!or!not!they!are!
relevant!to!local!needs!and!resources.!It!is!for!this!reason!that!there!should!be!a!genuine!interplay,!a!balancing!of!viewpoints,!and!a!
harmonization! of! proposals! from! both! the! local! and! national! officials.! It! is! for! this! reason! that! the! nomination! and! appointment!
process!involves!a!sharing!of!power!between!the!two!levels!of!government.!
It!may!not!be!amiss!to!give!by!way!of!analogy!the!procedure!followed!in!the!appointments!of!Justices!and!Judges.1wphi1!Under!
Article!VIII!of!the!Constitution,!nominations!for!judicial!positions!are!made!by!the!Judicial!and!Bar!Council.!The!President!makes!the!
appointments!from!the!list!of!nominees!submitted!to!her!by!the!Council.!She!cannot!apply!the!DBM!procedure,!reject!all!the!Council!
nominees,! and! appoint! another! person! whom! she! feels! is! better! qualified.! There! can! be! no! reservation! of! the! right! to! fill! up! a!
position!with!a!person!of!the!appointing!power's!personal!choice.!
The!public!respondent's!grave!abuse!of!discretion!is!aggravated!by!the!fact!that!Director!Galvez!required!the!Provincial!Governor!to!
submit!at!least!three!other!names!of!nominees!better!qualified!than!his!earlier!recommendation.!It!was!a!meaningless!exercise.!The!
appointment!of!the!private!respondent!was!formalized!before!the!Governor!was!extended!the!courtesy!of!being!informed!that!his!
nominee!had!been!rejected.!The!complete!disregard!of!the!local!government's!prerogative!and!the!smug!belief!that!the!DBM!has!
absolute!wisdom,!authority,!and!discretion!are!manifest.!
In! his! classic! work! "Philippine! Political! Law"! Dean! Vicente! G.! Sinco! stated! that! the! value! of! local! governments! as! institutions! of!
democracy!is!measured!by!the!degree!of!autonomy!that!they!enjoy.!Citing!Tocqueville,!he!stated!that!"local!assemblies!of!citizens!

constitute!the!strength!of!free!nations.!.!.!.!A!people!may!establish!a!system!of!free!government!but!without!the!spirit!of!municipal!
institutions,!it!cannot!have!the!spirit!of!liberty."!(Sinco,!Philippine!Political!Law,!Eleventh!Edition,!pp.!705D706).!
Our!national!officials!should!not!only!comply!with!the!constitutional!provisions!on!local!autonomy!but!should!also!appreciate!the!
spirit!of!liberty!upon!which!these!provisions!are!based.!
WHEREFORE,! the! petition! is! hereby! GRANTED.! The! questioned! resolutions! of! the! Civil! Service! Commission! are! SET! ASIDE.! The!
appointment! of! respondent! Cecilia! Almajose! is! nullified.! The! Department! of! Budget! and! Management! is! ordered! to! appoint! the!
Provincial!Budget!Officer!of!Rizal!from!among!qualified!nominees!submitted!by!the!Provincial!Governor.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!
!
!
!
!
G.R.$No.$104732$June$22,$1993$
ROBERTO$ A.$ FLORES,$ DANIEL$ Y.$ FIGUEROA,$ ROGELIO$ T.$ PALO,$ DOMINGO$ A.$ JADLOC,$ CARLITO$ T.$ CRUZ$ and$ MANUEL$ P.$
REYES,$petitioner,!!
vs.!
HON.$FRANKLIN$M.$DRILON,$Executive$Secretary,$and$RICHARD$J.$GORDON,$respondents.!
BELLOSILLO,$J.:!
The!constitutionality!of!Sec.!13,!par.!(d),!of!R.A.!7227,$1$otherwise!known!as!the!"Bases!Conversion!and!Development!Act!of!1992,"!
under!which!respondent!Mayor!Richard!J.!Gordon!of!Olongapo!City!was!appointed!Chairman!and!Chief!Executive!Officer!of!the!Subic!

Bay! Metropolitan! Authority! (SBMA),! is! challenged! in! this! original! petition! with! prayer! for! prohibition,! preliminary! injunction! and!
temporary! restraining! order! "to! prevent! useless! and! unnecessary! expenditures! of! public! funds! by! way! of! salaries! and! other!
operational!expenses!attached!to!the!office!.!.!.!."$2$Paragraph!(d)!reads!!
(d)! Chairman, administrator,! The! President! shall! appoint! a! professional! manager! as! administrator! of! the! Subic!
Authority! with! a! compensation! to! be! determined! by! the! Board! subject! to! the! approval! of! the! Secretary! of! Budget,!
who! shall! be! the!ex, oficio,chairman! of! the! Board! and! who! shall! serve! as! the! chief! executive! officer! of! the! Subic!
Authority:!Provided,,however,,That,for,the,first,year,of,its,operations,from,the,effectivity,of,this,Act,,the,mayor,of,the,
City, of, Olongapo, shall, be, appointed, as, the, chairman, and, chief, executive, officer, of, the, Subic, Authority!(emphasis!
supplied).!
Petitioners,! who! claim! to! be! taxpayers,! employees! of! the! U.S.! Facility! at! the! Subic,! Zambales,! and! officers! and! members! of! the!
Filipino!Civilian!Employees!Association!in!U.S.!Facilities!in!the!Philippines,!maintain!that!theproviso,in,par.!(d)!of!Sec.!13!hereinDabove!
quoted!in!italics!infringes!on!the!following!constitutional!and!statutory!provisions:!(a)!Sec.!7,!first!par.,!Art.!IXDB,!of!the!Constitution,!
which!states!that!"[n]o,elective,official,shall,be,eligible,for,appointment,or,designation,in,any,capacity,to,any,public,officer,or,position,
during,his,tenure,"$3$because!the!City!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City!is!an!elective!official!and!the!subject!posts!are!public!offices;!(b)!Sec.!
16,!Art.!VII,!of!the!Constitution,!which!provides!that!"[t]he!President!shall!.!.!.!.!appoint!all!other!officers!of!the!Government!whose!
appointments! are! not! otherwise,provided,for! by! law,! and! those! whom! he! may! be! authorized! by! law! to! appoint",$4$since! it! was!
Congress!through!the!questioned,proviso!and!not!the!President!who!appointed!the!Mayor!to!the!subject!posts;$5$and,!(c)!Sec.!261,!
par.!(g),!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!which!says:!
Sec.!261.!Prohibited,Acts.!!The!following!shall!be!guilty!of!an!election!offense:!.!.!.!(g)!Appointment!of!new!employees,!
creation! of! new! position,! promotion,! or! giving! salary! increases.! ! During! the! period! of! fortyDfive! days! before! a! regular!
election!and!thirty!days!before!a!special!election,!(1)!any!head,!official!or!appointing!officer!of!a!government!office,!agency!
or! instrumentality,! whether! national! or! local,! including! governmentDowned! or! controlled! corporations,! who! appoints! or!
hires! any! new! employee,! whether! provisional,! temporary! or! casual,! or! creates! and! fills! any! new! position,! except! upon!
prior! authority! of! the! Commission.! The! Commission! shall! not! grant! the! authority! sought! unless! it! is! satisfied! that! the!
position!to!be!filled!is!essential!to!the!proper!functioning!of!the!office!or!agency!concerned,!and!that!the!position!shall!not!
be!filled!in!a!manner!that!may!influence!the!election.!As!an!exception!to!the!foregoing!provisions,!a!new!employee!may!be!
appointed! in! case! of! urgent! need:Provided,!however,! That! notice! of! the! appointment! shall! be! given! to! the! Commission!
within!three!days!from!the!date!of!the!appointment.!Any!appointment!or!hiring!in!violation!of!this!provision!shall!be!null!

and!void.!(2)!Any!government!official!who!promotes,!or!gives!any!increase!of!salary!or!remuneration!or!privilege!to!any!
government!official!or!employee,!including!those!in!governmentDowned!or!controlled!corporations!.!.!.!.!
for!the!reason!that!the!appointment!of!respondent!Gordon!to!the!subject!posts!made!by!respondent!Executive!Secretary!on!3!April!
1992!was!within!the!prohibited!45Dday!period!prior!to!the!11!May!1992!Elections.!
The!principal!question!is!whether!the,proviso,in!Sec.!13,!par.!(d),!of!R.A.!7227!which!states,!"Provided,,however,That,for,the,first,year,
of, its, operations, from, the, effectivity, of, this, Act,, the, mayor, of, the, City, of, Olongapo, shall, be, appointed, as, the, chairman, and, chief,
executive, officer, of, the, Subic, Authority,"! violates! the! constitutional! proscription! against! appointment! or! designation! of! elective!
officials!to!other!government!posts.!
In!full,!Sec.!7!of!Art.!IXDB!of!the!Constitution!provides:!
No! elective! official! shall! be! eligible! for! appointment! or! designation! in! any! capacity! to! any! public! office! or! position!
during!his!tenure.!
Unless!otherwise!allowed!by!law!or!by!the!primary!functions!of!his!position,!no!appointive!official!shall!hold!any!other!
office! or! employment! in! the! Government! or! any! subdivision,! agency! or! instrumentality! thereof,! including!
governmentDowned!or!controlled!corporations!or!their!subsidiaries.!
The! section! expresses! the! policy! against! the! concentration! of! several! public! positions! in! one! person,! so! that! a! public! officer! or!
employee!may!serve!fullDtime!with!dedication!and!thus!be!efficient!in!the!delivery!of!public!services.!It!is!an!affirmation!that!a!public!
office! is! a! fullDtime! job.! Hence,! a! public! officer! or! employee,! like! the! head! of! an! executive! department! described! in!Civil, Liberties,
Union, v., Executive, Secretary,!G.R., No., 83896,! and!AntiPGraft, League, of, the, Philippines,, Inc., v., Philip, Ella, C., Juico,, as, Secretary, of,
Agrarian,Reform,!G.R.!No.!83815,$6$".!.!.!.!should!be!allowed!to!attend!to!his!duties!and!responsibilities!without!the!distraction!of!
other! governmental! duties! or! employment.! He! should! be! precluded! from! dissipating! his! efforts,! attention! and! energy! among! too!
many!positions!of!responsibility,!which!may!result!in!haphazardness!and!inefficiency!.!.!.!."!
Particularly!as!regards!the!first!paragraph!of!Sec.!7,!"(t)he!basic!idea!really!is!to!prevent!a!situation!where!a!local!elective!official!will!
work!for!his!appointment!in!an!executive!position!in!government,!and!thus!neglect!his!constituents!.!.!.!."$7!

In! the! case! before! us,! the! subject,proviso,directs! the! President! to! appoint! an! elective! official,!i.e.,! the! Mayor! of! Olongapo! City,! to!
other! government! posts! (as! Chairman! of! the! Board! and! Chief! Executive! Officer! of! SBMA).! Since! this! is! precisely! what! the!
constitutional!proscription!seeks!to!prevent,!it!needs!no!stretching!of!the!imagination!to!conclude!that!the,proviso,contravenes!Sec.!
7,!first!par.,!Art.!IXDB,!of!the!Constitution.!Here,!the!fact!that!the!expertise!of!an!elective!official!may!be!most!beneficial!to!the!higher!
interest!of!the!body!politic!is!of!no!moment.!
It!is!argued!that!Sec.!94!of!the!Local!Government!Code!(LGC)!permits!the!appointment!of!a!local!elective!official!to!another!post!if!so!
allowed!by!law!or!by!the!primary!functions!of!his!office.$8$But,!the!contention!is!fallacious.!Section!94!of!the!LGC!is!not!determinative!
of! the! constitutionality! of! Sec.! 13,! par.! (d),! of! R.A.! 7227,! for! no! legislative! act! can! prevail! over! the! fundamental! law! of! the! land.!
Moreover,! since! the! constitutionality! of! Sec.! 94! of! LGC! is! not! the! issue! here! nor! is! that! section! sought! to! be! declared!
unconstitutional,!we!need!not!rule!on!its!validity.!Neither!can!we!invoke!a!practice!otherwise!unconstitutional!as!authority!for!its!
validity.!
In!any!case,!the!view!that!an!elective!official!may!be!appointed!to!another!post!if!allowed!by!law!or!by!the!primary!functions!of!his!
office,! ignores! the! clearDcut! difference! in! the! wording! of! the! two! (2)! paragraphs! of! Sec.! 7,! Art.!!
IXDB,!of!the!Constitution.!While!the!second!paragraph!authorizes!holding!of!multiple!offices!by!an!appointiveofficial!when!allowed!by!
law!or!by!the!primary!functions!of!his!position,!the!first!paragraph!appears!to!be!more!stringent!by!not!providing!any!exception!to!
the!rule!against!appointment!or!designation!of!an!elective,official!to!the!government!post,!except!as!are!particularly!recognized!in!
the!Constitution!itself,!e.g.,!the!President!as!head!of!the!economic!and!planning!agency;$9$the!ViceDPresident,!who!may!be!appointed!
Member!of!the!Cabinet;!10$and,!a!member!of!Congress!who!may!be!designated!ex,officio,member!of!the!Judicial!and!Bar!Council.!11!
The! distinction! between! the! first! and! second! paragraphs! of! Sec.! 7,! Art.! IXDB,! was! not! accidental! when! drawn,! and! not! without!
reason.!It!was!purposely!sought!by!the!drafters!of!the!Constitution!as!shown!in!their!deliberation,!thus!!
MR.!MONSOD.!In!other!words,!what!then!Commissioner!is!saying,!Mr.!Presiding!Officer,!is!that!the!prohibition!is!more!
strict!with!respect!to!elective!officials,!because!in!the!case!of!appointive!officials,!there!may!be!a!law!that!will!allow!
them!to!hold!other!positions.!
MR.! FOZ.! Yes,! I! suggest! we! make! that! difference,! because! in! the! case! of! appointive! officials,! there! will! be! certain!
situations!where!the!law!should!allow!them!to!hold!some!other!positions.!12!

The!distinction!being!clear,!the!exemption!allowed!to!appointive!officials!in!the!second!paragraph!cannot!be!extended!to!elective!
officials!who!are!governed!by!the!first!paragraph.!
It! is! further! argued! that! the! SBMA! posts! are! merely!ex, officio,to! the! position! of! Mayor! of! Olongapo! City,! hence,! an! excepted!
circumstance,!citing!Civil,Liberties,Union,v.,Executive,Secretary,!13$where!we!stated!that!the!prohibition!against!the!holding!of!any!
other!office!or!employment!by!the!President,!ViceDPresident,!Members!of!the!Cabinet,!and!their!deputies!or!assistants!during!their!
tenure,! as!provided,in! Sec.! 13,! Art.! VII,! of! the! Constitution,! does! not! comprehend! additional! duties! and! functions!required, by, the,
primary,functions,of,the,officials,concerned,,who,are,to,perform,them,in,an,ex,officio,capacity,as,provided,by,law,,without,receiving,
any,additional,compensation,therefor.!
This! argument! is! apparently! based! on! a! wrong! premise.! Congress! did! not! contemplate! making! the! subject! SBMA! posts! as!ex,
officio,or! automatically! attached! to! the! Office! of! the! Mayor! of! Olongapo! City! without! need! of! appointment.! The! phrase! "shall! be!
appointed"!unquestionably!shows!the!intent!to!make!the!SBMA!posts!appointive!and!not!merely!adjunct!to!the!post!of!Mayor!of!
Olongapo!City.!Had!it!been!the!legislative!intent!to!make!the!subject!positions!ex,officio,!Congress!would!have,!at!least,!avoided!the!
word!"appointed"!and,!instead,!"ex,officio"!would!have!been!used.!14!
Even!in!the!Senate!deliberations,!the!Senators!were!fully!aware!that!subject,proviso,may!contravene!Sec.!7,!first!par.,!Art.!IXDB,!but!
they!nevertheless!passed!the!bill!and!decided!to!have!the!controversy!resolved!by!the!courts.!Indeed,!the!Senators!would!not!have!
been!concerned!with!the!effects!of!Sec.!7,!first!par.,!had!they!considered!the!SBMA!posts!as!ex,officio.!
Cognizant!of!the!complication!that!may!arise!from!the!way!the!subject!proviso,was!stated,!Senator!Rene!Saguisag!remarked!that!"if!
the! Conference! Committee! just! said! "the! Mayor! shall! be! the! Chairman"! then! that! should! foreclose! the! issue.! It! is! a! legislative!
choice."!15$The! Senator! took! a! view! that! the! constitutional! proscription! against! appointment! of! elective! officials! may! have! been!
sidestepped!if!Congress!attached!the!SBMA!posts!to!the!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City!instead!of!directing!the!President!to!appoint!him!to!
the!post.!Without!passing!upon!this!view!of!Senator!Saguisag,!it!suffices!to!state!that!Congress!intended!the!posts!to!be!appointive,!
thus!nibbling!in!the!bud!the!argument!that!they!are!ex,officio.!
The!analogy!with!the!position!of!Chairman!of!the!Metro!Manila!Authority!made!by!respondents!cannot!be!applied!to!uphold!the!
constitutionality!of!the!challenged,proviso,since!it!is!not!put!in!issue!in!the!present!case.!In!the!same!vein,!the!argument!that!if!no!
elective!official!may!be!appointed!or!designated!to!another!post!then!Sec.!8,!Art.!IXDB,!of!the!Constitution!allowing!him!to!receive!
double!compensation!16$would!be!useless,!is!non,sequitur,since!Sec.!8!does!not!affect!the!constitutionality!of!the!subject,proviso.!In!

any! case,! the! ViceDPresident! for! example,! an! elective! official! who! may! be! appointed! to! a! cabinet! post! under! Sec.! 3,! Art.! VII,! may!
receive!the!compensation!attached!to!the!cabinet!position!if!specifically!authorized!by!law.!
Petitioners!also!assail!the!legislative!encroachment!on!the!appointing!authority!of!the!President.!Section!13,!par.!(d),!itself!vests!in!
the!President!the!power!to!appoint!the!Chairman!of!the!Board!and!the!Chief!Executive!Officer!of!SBMA,!although!he!really!has!no!
choice!under!the!law!but!to!appoint!the!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City.!
As! may! be! defined,! an! "appointment"! is! "[t]he! designation! of! a! person,! by! the! person! or! persons! having! authority! therefor,! to!
discharge! the! duties! of! some! office! or! trust,"!17$or! "[t]he! selection! or! designation! of! a! person,! by! the! person! or! persons! having!
authority! therefor,! to! fill! an! office! or! public! function! and! discharge! the! duties! of! the! same.!18$In! his! treatise,!Philippine, Political,,
Law,!19$Senior!Associate!Justice!Isagani!A.!Cruz!defines!appointment!as!"the!selection,!by!the!authority!vested!with!the!power,!of!an!
individual!who!is!to!exercise!the!functions!of!a!given!office."!
Considering!that!appointment!calls!for!a!selection,!the!appointing!power!necessarily!exercises!a!discretion.!According!to!Woodbury,!
J.,!20$"the!choice,of!a!person!to!fill!an!office!constitutes!the!essence!of!his!appointment,"!21$and!Mr.!Justice!Malcolm!adds!that!an!
"[a]ppointment! to! office! is! intrinsically! an! executive! act! involving! the! exercise! of! discretion."!22$In!Pamantasan, ng, Lungsod, ng,
Maynila,v.,Intermediate,Appellate,Court,23$we!held:!
The! power! to! appoint! is,! in! essence,! discretionary.! The! appointing! power! has! the! right! of! choice! which! he! may!
exercise! freely! according! to! his! judgment,! deciding! for! himself! who! is! best! qualified! among! those! who! have! the!
necessary!qualifications!and!eligibilities.!It!is!a!prerogative!of!the!appointing!power!.!.!.!.!
Indeed,! the! power! of! choice! is! the! heart! of! the! power! to! appoint.! Appointment! involves! an! exercise! of! discretion! of! whom! to!
appoint;!it!is!not!a!ministerial!act!of!issuing!appointment!papers!to!the!appointee.!In!other!words,!the!choice!of!the!appointee!is!a!
fundamental!component!of!the!appointing!power.!
Hence,!when!Congress!clothes!the!President!with!the!power!to!appoint!an!officer,!it!(Congress)!cannot!at!the!same!time!limit!the!
choice! of! the! President! to! only! one! candidate.! Once! the! power! of! appointment! is! conferred! on! the! President,! such! conferment!
necessarily!carries!the!discretion!of!whom!to!appoint.!Even!on!the!pretext!of!prescribing!the!qualifications!of!the!officer,!Congress!
may! not! abuse! such! power! as! to! divest! the! appointing! authority,! directly! or! indirectly,! of! his! discretion! to! pick! his! own! choice.!
Consequently,! when! the! qualifications! prescribed! by! Congress! can! only! be! met! by! one! individual,! such! enactment! effectively!
eliminates!the!discretion!of!the!appointing!power!to!choose!and!constitutes!an!irregular!restriction!on!the!power!of!appointment.!24!

In! the! case! at! bar,! while! Congress! willed! that! the! subject! posts! be! filled! with! a! presidential! appointee! for! the! first! year! of! its!
operations! from! the! effectivity! of! R.A.! 7227,! the,proviso,nevertheless! limits! the! appointing! authority! to! only! one! eligible,!i.e.,! the!
incumbent!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City.!Since!only!one!can!qualify!for!the!posts!in!question,!the!President!is!precluded!from!exercising!
his!discretion!to!choose!whom!to!appoint.!Such!supposed!power!of!appointment,!sans!the!essential!element!of!choice,!is!no!power!
at!all!and!goes!against!the!very!nature!itself!of!appointment.!
While!it!may!be!viewed!that!the,proviso!merely!sets!the!qualifications!of!the!officer!during!the!first!year!of!operations!of!SBMA,!i.e.,!
he!must!be!the!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City,!it!is!manifestly!an!abuse!of!congressional!authority!to!prescribe!qualifications!where!only!
one,! and! no! other,! can! qualify.! Accordingly,! while! the! conferment! of! the! appointing! power! on! the! President! is! a! perfectly! valid!
legislative!act,!the,proviso,limiting!his!choice!to!one!is!certainly!an!encroachment!on!his!prerogative.!
Since! the! ineligibility! of! an! elective! official! for! appointment! remains! all! throughout! his! tenure! or! during! his! incumbency,! he! may!
however!resign!first!from!his!elective!post!to!cast!off!the!constitutionallyDattached!disqualification!before!he!may!be!considered!fit!
for!appointment.!The!deliberation!in!the!Constitutional!Commission!is!enlightening:!
MR.!DAVIDE.!On!Section!4,!page!3,!line!8,!I!propose!the!substitution!of!the!word!"term"!with!TENURE.!
MR.!FOZ.!The!effect!of!the!proposed!amendment!is!to!make!possible!for!one!to!resign!from!his!position.!
MR.!DAVIDE.!Yes,!we!should!allow!that!prerogative.!
MR.!FOZ.!Resign!from!his!position!to!accept!an!executive!position.!
MR.!DAVIDE.!Besides,!it!may!turn!out!in!a!given!case!that!because!of,!say,!incapacity,!he!may!leave!the!service,!but!if!he!is!
prohibited! from! being! appointed! within! the! term! for! which! he! was! elected,! we! may! be! depriving! the! government! of! the!
needed!expertise!of!an!individual.!25!
Consequently,!as!long!as!he!is!an!incumbent,!an!elective!official!remains!ineligible!for!appointment!to!another!public!office.!
Where,!as!in!the!case!of!respondent!Gordon,!an!incumbent!elective!official!was,!notwithstanding!his!ineligibility,!appointed!to!other!
government!posts,!he!does!not!automatically!forfeit!his!elective!office!nor!remove!his!ineligibility!imposed!by!the!Constitution.!On!
the!contrary,!since!an!incumbent!elective!official!is!not!eligible!to!the!appointive!position,!his!appointment!or!designation!thereto!

cannot!be!valid!in!view!of!his!disqualification!or!lack!of!eligibility.!This!provision!should!not!be!confused!with!Sec.!13,!Art.!VI,!of!the!
Constitution! where! "(n)o! Senator! or! Member! of! the! House! of! Representatives! may! hold! any! other! office! or! employment! in! the!
Government! .! .! .! during! his! term! without! forfeiting! his! seat! .! .! .! ."! The! difference! between! the! two! provisions! is! significant! in! the!
sense! that! incumbent! national! legislators! lose! their! elective! posts! only! after! they! have! been! appointed! to! another! government!
office,!while!other!incumbent!elective!officials!must!first!resign!their!posts!before!they!can!be!appointed,!thus!running!the!risk!of!
losing!the!elective!post!as!well!as!not!being!appointed!to!the!other!post.!It!is!therefore!clear!that!ineligibility!is!not!directly!related!
with!forfeiture!of!office.!".!.!.!.!The!effect!is!quite!different!where!it!is!expressly,provided,by!law!that!a!person!holding!one!office!shall!
be!ineligible!to!another.!Such!a!provision!is!held!to!incapacitate!the!incumbent!of!an!office!from!accepting!or!holding!a!second!office!
(State! ex! rel.! Van! Antwerp! v! Hogan,! 283! Ala.! 445,! 218! So! 2d! 258;! McWilliams! v! Neal,! 130! Ga! 733,! 61! SE! 721)! and! to! render! his!
election!or!appointment!to!the!latter!office!void!(State!ex!rel.!Childs!v!Sutton,!63!Minn!147,!65!NW!262.!Annotation:!40!ALR!945)!or!
voidable!(Baskin!v!State,!107!Okla!272,!232!p!388,!40!ALR!941)."!26$"Where!the!constitution,!or!statutes!declare!that!persons!holding!
one!office!shall!be!ineligible!for!election!or!appointment!to!another!office,!either!generally!or!of!a!certain!kind,!the!prohibition!has!
been!held!to!incapacitate!the!incumbent!of!the!first!office!to!hold!the!second!so!that!any!attempt!to!hold!the!second!is!void!(Ala.!!
State!ex!rel.!Van!Antwerp!v.!Hogan,!218!So!2d!258,!283!Ala!445)."!27!
As!incumbent!elective!official,!respondent!Gordon!is!ineligible!for!appointment!to!the!position!of!Chairman!of!the!Board!and!Chief!
Executive! of! SBMA;! hence,! his! appointment! thereto! pursuant! to! a! legislative! act! that! contravenes! the! Constitution! cannot! be!
sustained.!He!however!remains!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City,!and!his!acts!as!SBMA!official!are!not!necessarily!null!and!void;!he!may!be!
considered!a!de,facto,officer,!"one!whose!acts,!though!not!those!of!a!lawful!officer,!the!law,!upon!principles!of!policy!and!justice,!will!
hold!valid!so!far!as!they!involve!the!interest!of!the!public!and!third!persons,!where!the!duties!of!the!office!were!exercised!.!.!.!.!under!
color!of!a!known!election!or!appointment,!void!because!the,officer,was,not,eligible,!or!because!there!was!a!want!of!power!in!the!
electing! or! appointing! body,! or! by! reason! of! some! defect! or! irregularity! in! its! exercise,! such! ineligibility,! want! of! power! or! defect!
being!unknown!to!the!public!.!.!.!.![or]!under,color,of,an,election,,or,appointment,,by,or,pursuant,to,a,public,unconstitutional,law,,
before,the,same,is,adjudged,to,be,such!(State!vs.!Carroll,!38!Conn.,!499;!Wilcox!vs.!Smith,!5!Wendell![N.Y.],!231;!21!Am.!Dec.,!213;!
Sheehan's!Case,!122!Mass,!445,!23!Am.!Rep.,!323)."!28!
Conformably!with!our!ruling!in!Civil,Liberties,Union,!any!and!all,per,diems,!allowances!and!other!emoluments!which!may!have!been!
received!by!respondent!Gordon!pursuant!to!his!appointment!may!be!retained!by!him.!
The! illegality! of! his! appointment! to! the! SBMA! posts! being! now! evident,! other! matters! affecting! the! legality! of! the!
questioned,proviso,as!well!as!the!appointment!of!said!respondent!made!pursuant!thereto!need!no!longer!be!discussed.!

In!thus!concluding!as!we!do,!we!can!only!share!the!lament!of!Sen.!Sotero!Laurel!which!he!expressed!in!the!floor!deliberations!of!S.B.!
1648,!precursor!of!R.A.!7227,!when!he!articulated!!
.!.!.!.!(much)!as!we!would!like!to!have!the!present!Mayor!of!Olongapo!City!as!the!Chief!Executive!of!this!Authority!that!
we!are!creating;!(much)!as!I,!myself,!would!like!to!because!I!know!the!capacity,!integrity,!industry!and!dedication!of!
Mayor!Gordon;!(much)!as!we!would!like!to!give!him!this!terrific,!burdensome!and!heavy!responsibility,!we!cannot!do!
it! because! of! the! constitutional! prohibition! which! is! very! clear.! It! says:! "No! elective! official! shall! be! appointed! or!
designated!to!another!position!in!any!capacity."!29!
For,!indeed,!"a!Constitution!must!be!firm!and!immovable,!like!a!mountain!amidst!the!strife!of!storms!or!a!rock!in!the!ocean!amidst!
the! raging! of! the! waves."!30$One! of! the! characteristics! of! the! Constitution! is! permanence,!i.e.,! "its! capacity! to! resist! capricious! or!
whimsical!change!dictated!not!by!legitimate!needs!but!only!by!passing!fancies,!temporary!passions!or!occasional!infatuations!of!the!
people! with! ideas! or! personalities! .! .! .! .! Such! a! Constitution! is! not! likely! to! be! easily! tampered! with! to! suit! political! expediency,!
personal!ambitions!or!illDadvised!agitation!for!change."!31!
Ergo,!under!the!Constitution,!Mayor!Gordon!has!a!choice.!We!have!no!choice.!
WHEREFORE,! the,proviso,in! par.! (d),! Sec.! 13,! of! R.A.! 7227,! which! states:! ".! .! .!Provided,, however,, That, for, the, first, year, of, its,
operations,from,the,effectivity,of,this,Act,,the,Mayor,of,the,City,of,Olongapo,shall,be,appointed,as,the,chairman,and,chief,executive,
officer, of, the, Subic, Authority,"! is! declared! unconstitutional;! consequently,! the! appointment! pursuant! thereto! of! the! Mayor! of!
Olongapo!City,!respondent!Richard!J.!Gordon,!is!INVALID,!hence!NULL!and!VOID.!
However,! all,per, diems,! allowances! and! other! emoluments! received! by! respondent! Gordon,! if! any,! as! such! Chairman! and! Chief!
Executive!Officer!may!be!retained!by!him,!and!all!acts!otherwise!legitimate!done!by!him!in!the!exercise!of!his!authority!as!officer!de,
facto,of!SBMA!are!hereby!UPHELD.!
SO!ORDERED.!
[G.R.$No.$122197.$June$26,$1998]$
ZOSIMO$M.$DIMAANDAL,$petitioner,,vs.$COMMISSION$ON$AUDIT,$respondent.$
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N$
MARTINEZ,$J.:$

This! petition! for! certiorari! seeks! the! reversal! of! the! decision! of! the! Commission! on! Audit! dated! September! 7,! 1995,[1]!the!
dispositive!portion!of!which!reads,!to!wit:!
Foregoing!premises!considered,!the!instant!appeal!cannot!be!given!due!course.!Accordingly,!the!disallowance!in!question!in!the!total!
amount!of!P52,908.00!is!hereby!affirmed.!Considering!that!the!claim!for!the!RATA!differential!in!the!amount!of!P8,400.00!is!devoid!
of!any!legal!basis,!the!same!is!also!disallowed.!Hence,!appellant!Zosimo!M.!Dimaandal!is!hereby!directed!to!refund!the!salary!and!
RATA!differential!in!the!amount!of!P61,308.00!he!had!received!from!the!Provincial!Government!of!Batangas.[2]!
The!undisputed!facts:!
On!November!23,!1992,!petitioner!Zosimo!M.!Dimaandal,!then!holding!the!position!of!Supply!Officer!III,!was!designated!Acting!
Assistant! Provincial! Treasurer! for! Administration! by! then! Governor! Vicente! A.! Mayo! of! Batangas.!Pursuant! to! the! designation,!
petitioner!filed!a!claim!for!the!difference!in!salary!and!Representation!and!Transportation!Allowance!(RATA)!of!Assistant!Provincial!
Treasurer!and!Supply!Officer!III!for!the!whole!year!of!1993!in!the!total!amount!of!P61,308.00.!
However,! the! Provincial! Auditor! disallowed! in! audit!P52,908.00! of! the! claim.!What! was! allowed! was! only! the! amount!
of!P8,400.00!which!corresponds!to!the!difference!in!the!allowances!attached!to!the!designation!and!the!position!occupied!by!the!
appellant.!The!disallowance!was!premised!on!the!following!reasons:!
1.!The!provisions!of!Section!2077!of!the!Revised!Administrative!Code!is!not!applicable!in!the!instant!case!as!the!power!to!fill!the!
position!of!Assistant!Provincial!Treasurer!rests!on!the!Secretary!of!Finance.!
2.!The!designation!is!temporary!in!nature!and!does!not!amount!to!the!issuance!of!an!appointment!as!could!entitle!the!designee!to!
receive!the!salary!of!the!position!to!which!he!is!designated!(Opinion!of!the!Director,!Office!for!Legal!Affairs,!Civil!Service!Commission!
dated!January!25,!1994).!
On! August! 3,! 1994,! Governor! Mayo! wrote! to! the! Provincial! Auditor! requesting! reconsideration! of! the! subject! disallowance,!
interposing!the!following!reasons:!
1.!That!Section!2077!of!the!Revised!Administrative!Code!is!applicable!in!the!instant!case!as!the!same!provides!that!the!Governor!
General!or!the!officer!having!the!power!to!fillDup!a!temporary!absence!or!disability!in!the!provincial!office!has!the!power!to!order!or!
authorize!payment!of!compensation!to!any!government!officer!or!employee!designated!or!appointed!temporarily!to!fill!the!place;!

2.! That! the! budget! containing! an! appropriation! for! the! position! of! Assistant! Provincial! Treasurer! for! Administration! was! already!
approved!by!the!Provincial!Board;!and!
3.!That!Mr.!Dimaandal!at!the!time!of!his!designation!as!Acting!Provincial!Treasurer!for!Administration!was!no!longer!performing!the!
duties!and!functions!of!Supply!Officer!III."!
The! Provincial! Auditor,! however,! denied! the! request! for! reconsideration.!Appellant! was! required! to! refund! the! amount!
of!P52,908.00!which!was!disallowed.!
Petitioner!appealed!to!the!respondent!Commission!on!Audit!which!sustained!the!stand!of!the!Provincial!Auditor!of!Batangas!as!
valid!and!proper.!The!respondent!Commission!was!of!the!view!that!the!petitioner!was!merely!designated!as!an!Assistant!Provincial!
Treasurer!for! Administration! in! addition! to! his! regular! duties.!As! such,! he! is! not! entitled! to! receive! an! additional! salary.!The!
Commission!further!opined!that!petitioner!was!likewise!not!entitled!to!receive!the!difference!in!RATA!provided!for!under!the!Local!
Budget!Circular!issued!by!the!Department!of!Budget!and!Management!considering!that!the!party!designating!him!to!such!position!is!
not!the!duly!competent!authority,!provided!for!under!Section!471!of!the!Local!Government!Code.!Notably,!petitioner!was!appointed!
as!Assistant!Provincial!Treasurer!for!Administration!by!the!Secretary!of!Finance!only!on!July!8,!1994.!
Thus,!the!respondent!Commission!not!only!affirmed!the!disallowance!of!the!amount!of!P52,908.00!but!likewise!disallowed!the!
claim!for!the!RATA!differential!in!the!amount!ofP8,400.00,!for!being!devoid!of!any!legal!basis.!Petitioner!was,!therefore,!directed!to!
refund!the!salary!and!RATA!differential!in!the!amount!of!P61,308.00.!
Hence,!this!petition.!
The! issue! here! is! whether! or! not! an! employee! who! is! designated! in! an! acting! capacity! is! entitled! to! the! difference! in! salary!
between!his!regular!position!and!the!higher!position!to!which!he!is!designated.!
Petitioner! avers! that! the! respondent! Commissions! decision! is! probably! not! in! accordance! with! applicable! decisions! of! the!
Supreme!Court.[3]!He!cites!the!cases!of!Cui,!et.!al.!vs.!Ortiz,!et.!al.,[4]!April!29,!1960;!and,!Menzon!vs.!Petilla,!May!20,!1991,[5]!which!
laid! down! the! rule! that! de! facto! officers! are! entitled! to! salary! for! services! actually! rendered.!Petitioner! contends! that! he! may! be!
considered!as!a!de!facto!officer!by!reason!of!services!rendered!in!favor!of!the!Province!of!Batangas.!He!then!posits!the!view!that!to!
disallow! his! compensation! and! in! the! process! allow! the! Province! of! Batangas! to! keep! and! enjoy! the! benefits! derived! from! his!
services! actually! rendered! would! be! tantamount! to! deprivation! of! property! without! due! process! of! law,! and! impairment! of!
obligation!of!contracts!duly!enshrined!in!the!Constitution.!

On!the!other!hand,!the!respondent!Commission,!through!the!Office!of!the!Solicitor!General,!maintains!that!the!decisions!cited!
by! petitioner! do! not! find! application! in! petitioners! case.!In! the! case! of!Menzon,! what! was! extended! was! an! appointment! to! the!
vacant!position!of!ViceDGovernor.!Here,!what!was!extended!to!petitioner!was!not!an!appointment!but!a!mere!designation.!Thus,!the!
nature!of!petitioners!designation!and!in!the!absence!of!authority!of!the!Governor!to!authorize!the!payment!of!the!additional!salary!
and! RATA! without! the! appropriate! resolution! from! the! Sangguniang! Panlalawigan! does! not! make! the! ruling! on! de! facto! officers!
applicable!in!this!case.!
We!find!the!petition!to!be!without!merit.!
We! are! not! persuaded! by! petitioners! insistence! that! he! could! still! claim! the! salary! and! RATA! differential! because! he! actually!
performed!the!functions!pertaining!to!the!office!of!Acting!Assistant!Provincial!Treasurer!and,!therefore,!entitled!to!the!salary!and!
benefits!attached!to!it!despite!the!fact!that!the!Governor!of!Batangas!had!no!authority!to!designate!him!to!the!said!position.!
The!law!applicable!is!Section!471(a)!of!RA!7160!otherwise!known!as!the!Local!Government!Code!which!mandates!that:!
Sec.!471.!Assistant!Treasurers.!D!(a)!An!assistant!treasurer!may!be!appointed!by!the!Secretary!of!Finance!from!a!list!of!at!least!three!
(3)!ranking!eligible!recommendees!of!the!governor!or!mayor,!subject!to!civil!service!law,!rules!and!regulations.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!
In! fact,! the! appointing! officer! is! authorized! by! law! to! order! the! payment! of! compensation! to! any! government! officer! or!
employee!designated!or!appointed!to!fill!such!vacant!position,!as!provided!under!Section!2077!of!the!Revised!Administrative!Code!
which!states!that:!
"Section!2077.!Compensation!for!person!appointed!to!temporary!service.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!
In!case!of!the!temporary!absence!or!disability!of!a!provincial!officer!or!in!case!of!a!vacancy!in!a!provincial!office,!the!President!of!the!
Philippines!or!officer!having!the!power!to!fill!such!position!may,!in!his!discretion,!order!the!payment!of!compensation,!or!additional!
compensation,! to! any! Government! officer! or! employee! designated! or! appointed! temporarily! to! fill! the! place,! but! the! total!
compensation!paid!shall!not!exceed!the!salary!authorized!by!law!for!the!position!filled.!

Undoubtedly,!the!aforecited!laws!do!not!authorize!the!Provincial!Governor!to!appoint!nor!even!designate!one!temporarily!in!
cases!of!temporary!absence!or!disability!or!a!vacancy!in!a!provincial!office.!That!power!resides!in!the!President!of!the!Philippines!or!
the!Secretary!of!Finance.!
Necessarily,! petitioners! designation! as! Assistant! Provincial! Treasurer! for! Administration! by! Governor! Mayo! being! defective,!
confers!no!right!on!the!part!of!petitioner!to!claim!the!difference!in!the!salaries!and!allowances!attached!to!the!position!occupied!by!
him.!
Moreover,!what!was!extended!to!petitioner!by!Governor!Mayo!was!merely!a!designation!not!an!appointment.!The!respondent!
Commission!clearly!pointed!out!the!difference!between!an!appointment!and!designation,!thus:!
There!is!a!great!difference!between!an!appointment!and!designation.!While!an!appointment!is!the!selection!by!the!proper!authority!
of! an! individual! who! is! to! exercise! the! powers! and! functions! of! a! given! office,! designation! merely! connotes! an! imposition! of!
additional!duties,!usually!by!law,!upon!a!person!already!in!the!public!service!by!virtue!of!an!earlier!appointment!(Santiago!vs.!COA,!
199!SCRA!125).!
Designation!is!simply!the!mere!imposition!of!new!or!additional!duties!on!the!officer!or!employee!to!be!performed!by!him!in!a!special!
manner.!It! does! not! entail! payment! of! additional! benefits! or! grant! upon! the! person! so! designated! the! right! to! claim! the! salary!
attached!to!the!position!(COA!Decision!No.!95D087!dated!February!2,!1995).!As!such,!there!being!no!appointment!issued,!designation!
does!not!entitle!the!officer!designated!to!receive!the!salary!of!the!position.!For!the!legal!basis!of!an!employees!right!to!claim!the!
salary!attached!thereto!is!a!duly!issued!and!approved!appointment!to!the!position!(Opinion!dated!January!25,!1994!of!the!Office!for!
Legal!Affairs,!Civil!Service!Commission,!Re:!Evora,!Carlos,!A.!Jr.,!Designation).[6]!
This!Court!has!time!and!again!ruled!that:!
Although! technically! not! binding! and! controlling! on! the! courts,! the! construction! given! by! the! agency! or! entity! charged! with! the!
enforcement!of!a!statute!should!be!given!great!weight!and!respect!(In!re!Allen,!2!Phil.!630,!640),!particularly!so!if!such!construction,!
as!in!the!case!at!bar,!has!been!uniform,!and!consistent,!and!has!been!observed!and!acted!on!for!a!long!period!of!time!(Molina!vs.!
Rafferty,!38!Phil.!167;!Madrigal!vs.!Rafferty,!38!Phil.!414;!Philippine!Sugar!Central!vs.!Collector!of!Customs,!51!Phil.!143).[7]!
We!see!no!justifiable!reason!to!sustain!petitioners!argument!that!nonDpayment!of!his!salary!differential!and!RATA!would!be!a!
violation!of!his!constitutional!right!against!deprivation!of!property!without!due!process!of!law!and!the!nonDimpairment!of!obligation!
of!contracts!clause!in!the!Constitution.!

The! right! to! the! salary! of! an! Assistant! Provincial! Treasurer! is! based! on! the! assumption! that! the! appointment! or! designation!
thereof!was!made!in!accordance!with!law.!Considering!that!petitioners!designation!was!without!color!of!authority,!the!right!to!the!
salary!or!an!allowance!due!from!said!office!never!existed.!Stated!differently,!in!the!absence!of!such!right,!there!can!be!no!violation!
of!any!constitutional!right!nor!an!impairment!of!the!obligation!of!contracts!clause!under!the!Constitution.!
The!nature!of!petitioners!designation!and!the!absence!of!authority!of!the!Governor!to!authorize!the!payment!of!the!additional!
salary!and!RATA!without!the!appropriate!resolution!from!the!Sangguniang!Panlalawigan!does!not!make!him!a!de!facto!officer.!
A!de!facto!officer!is!defined!as!one!who!derives!his!appointment!from!one!having!colorable!authority!to!appoint,!if!the!office!is!
an!appointive!office,!and!whose!appointment!is!valid!on!its!face.!It!is!likewise!defined!as!one!who!is!in!possession!of!an!office,!and!is!
discharging! its! duties! under! color! of! authority,! by! which! is! meant! authority! derived! from! an! appointment,! however! irregular! or!
informal,!so!that!the!incumbent!be!not!a!mere!volunteer.[8]!Then!a!de!facto!officer!is!one!who!is!in!possession!of!an!office!in!the!
open! exercise! of! its! functions! under! color! of! an! election! or! an! appointment,! even! though! such! election! or! appointment! may! be!
irregular.[9]!
Petitioner! invokes! in! his! favor! the! ruling! in!Menzon!vs., Petilla,[10]!that! a! de! facto! officer! is! entitled! to! receive! the! salary! for!
services! actually! rendered.!However,! his! reliance! on! theMenzon!case! is! misplaced.!In!Menzon,! what! was! extended! was! an!
appointment!to!the!vacant!position!of!ViceDGovernor,!in!petitioners!case,!he!was!designated.!The!appointment!of!Menzon!had!the!
color!of!validity.!This!Court!said:!
And!finally,!even!granting!that!the!President,!acting!through!the!Secretary!of!Local!Government,!possesses!no!power!to!appoint!the!
petitioner,! at! the! very! least,! the! petitioner! is! a! de! facto! officer! entitled! to! compensation.!There! is! no! denying! that! the! petitioner!
assumed! the! Office! of! the! ViceDGovernor! under! a! color! of! a! known! appointment.!As! revealed! by! the! records,! the! petitioner! was!
appointed!by!no!less!than!the!alter!ego!of!the!President,!The!Secretary!of!Local!Government,!after!which!he!took!his!oath!of!office!
before!Senator!Alberto!Romulo!in!the!Office!of!Department!of!Local!Government!Regional!Director!Res!Salvatierra.!Concededly,!the!
appointment!has!the!color!of!validity.!
Likewise,!the!doctrine!in!Cui,!et.!al.!vs.!Ortiz,!et.!al.[11]!does!not!apply!in!petitioners!case.!In!Cui,,this!Court!held:!
Petitioners!appointments!on!December!1!and!12,!1955!by!the!then!mayor!of!the!municipality!were!legal!and!in!order,!the!appointing!
mayor! still! in! possession! of! his! right! to! appoint.!For! such! appointments! to! be! complete,! the! approval! of! the! President! of! the!
Philippines!is!required.!The!law!provides!that!pending!approval!of!said!appointment!by!the!President,!the!appointee!may!assume!
office!and!receive!salary!for!services!actually!rendered.!Accordingly,!therefore,!in!that!duration!until!the!appointment!is!finally!acted!

upon!favorably!or!unfavorably,!the!appointees!may!be!considered!as!de!facto!officers!and!entitled!to!salaries!for!services!actually!
rendered.!
Finally,!the!appointment!signed!by!Finance!Undersecretary!Juanita!D.!Amatong!is!dated!July!8,!1994.!Petitioners!claim!that!the!
appointment! retroDacts! to! his! assumption! of! office! is! not! confirmed! by! the! express! phraseology! of! the! appointment! itself,! which!
states:!
Kayo! ay! nahirang! na!ASSISTANT! PROVINCIAL! TREASURER! FOR! ADMINISTRATION!na! may! katayuang!PERMANENT!sa!OFFICE! OF! THE!
PROVINCIAL! TREASURER! OF! BATANGAS!sa! pasahod! na!ONE! HUNDRED! TWENTY! ONE! THOUSAND! SIX! HUNDRED! TWENTY!
(P121,620.00)! P.A.!piso.!Ito! ay! magkakabisa! sa! petsa! ng! pagganap! ng! tungkulin! subalit! di! aaga! sa! petsa! ng! pagpirma! ng! puno! ng!
tanggapan!o!appointing!authority.[12]!
The! subsequent! appointment! of! petitioner! to! the! position! on! July! 8,! 1994,! cannot! justify! petitioners! retention! of! the! excess!
amount! of!P61,308.00,! which! corresponds! to! the! amount! disallowed! and! ordered! refunded! by! COA! representing! the! salary! and!
RATA!in!excess!of!what!was!due!him!in!1993.!
WHEREFORE,$premises!considered,!the!petition!is!hereby!DISMISSED!for!lack!of!merit.!
SO$ORDERED.$
!
!
!
!
!
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
[G.R.$No.$127631.$December$17,$1999]$
Atty.$ ANGEL$ AGUIRRE$ JR.$ as$ City$ Legal$ Officer$ of$ Manila;$ Atty.$ DOMINADOR$ MAGLALANG,$ Atty.$ MA.$ THERESA$ BALAGTAS$ and$
Atty.$ ANALYN$ T.$ MARCELO,$ all$ members$ of$ the$ Legal$ Panel$ of$ the$ Office$ of$ the$ City$ Legal$ Officer$ of$ Manila,$petitioners,,
vs.$EVANGELINE$C.$DE$CASTRO,$respondents.$
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N$
PANGANIBAN,$J.:$
The! city! legal! officer! of! Manila! has! no! disciplinary! authority! over! the! chief! of! the! Legal! Affairs! and! Complaint! Services! of! the!
Division!of!City!Schools!of!Manila.!Inasmuch!as!the!said!official!was!appointed!by!and!is!a!subordinate!of!the!regional!director!of!the!
Department!of!Education,!Culture!and!Sports,!she!is!subject!to!the!supervision!and!control!of!said!director.!The!power!to!appoint!
carries!the!power!to!remove!or!to!discipline.!The!mere!fact!that!her!salary!is!sourced!from!city!funds!does!not!ipso,facto!place!her!
under!the!city!legal!officer's!disciplinary!jurisdiction,!absent!any!clear!statutory!basis!therefor.!
!
The$Case$
Before!this!Court!is!a!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari[1]!under!Rule!45!of!the!Rules!of!Court!seeking!reversal!of!the!October!22,!
1996!Decision[2]!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA)[3]!in!CADGR!SP!No.!40183,!the!dispositive!portion!of!which!reads:!
WHEREFORE,! premises! considered,! the! petition! is! GRANTED! and! the! public! respondent! City! Legal! Office! of! Manila! is! directed! to!
permanently!cease!and!desist!from!further!proceeding!with!Administrative!Case!CLO!No.!24D96.[4]!
Likewise!assailed!is!the!CAs!December!23,!1996!Resolution[5]denying!reconsideration.!
The$Facts$
The!undisputed!facts!of!the!case!are!summarized!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!as!follows:!
[Respondent][6]!Atty.!Evangeline!C.!De!Castro!is!the!Chief!of!the!Legal!Affairs!and!Complaint!Services!of!the!Division!of!City!Schools!
of!Manila.!On!February!1,!1996,![respondent]!received!a!letter!from!public!respondent!Angel!Aguirre,!Jr.,!City!Legal!Officer!of!Manila!
accompanied!by!copies!of!alleged!complaints!against!her.![Respondent]!was!required!in!the!said!letter!to!explain!within!seventy!two!
(72)!hours!upon!receipt!why!no!administrative!sanctions!shall!be!imposed!upon!her!for!gross!misconduct!and!conduct!unbecoming!x!
x!x!a!public!officer!in!violation!of!the!Civil!Service!Law,!Rules!and!Regulations.!

"On! February! 6,! 1996,! [Respondent]! Evangeline! de! Castro! filed! her! answerDaffidavit! which! was! received! on! the! same! day! by! the!
Office!of!the!City!Legal!Officer.!
"Subsequently,! on! February! 13,! 1996,! City! Legal! Officer! Angel! Aguirre,! Jr.! notified! the! [respondent]! that! her! answerDaffidavit! was!
found!unsatisfactory!for!which!reason!she!was!summoned!to!appear!before!the!said!City!Legal!Officer!for!the!purpose!of!conducting!
a!formal!investigation.!
"Two!(2)!days!later!or!on!February!15,!1996,![respondent]!filed!a!motion!to!dismiss.!She!claimed!that!she![was]!a!subordinate!of!the!
Secretary!of!the!Department!of!Education,!Culture!and!Sports!(DECS).Thus,!the!case!should!be!endorsed!to!the!Office!of!the!DECS!
Secretary!or!its!legal!division!as!nowhere!in!RA!409,!Charter!of!the!City!of!Manila!is!there!a!provision!conferring!upon!the!Office!of!
the! City! Legal! Officer! jurisdiction! to! try! and! investigate! personnel! of! the! DECS! in! general,! or! the! Division! of! City! Schools! where!
petitioner!is!under,!in!particular.!
"This!motion!to!dismiss!of![respondent]!was!denied!in!a!resolution!of!the!City!Legal!Officer!dated!February!21,!1996!citing!Sec.!455!
b(1)!and!(V)!of!the!Local!Government!Code!and!Section!3(c)!of!the!same!code.!In!the!said!resolution!it!was!held!that!the!records!of!
the!personnel!office!disclose[d]!that![respondent!was]!included!in!the!plantilla!of!the!City!of!Manila!and!therefore!her!salary!derived!
wholly!and!mainly!from!the!funds!of!the!City!for!which!reason!she![was]!subject!to!the!disciplinary!authority!of!the!said!City!Legal!
Officer.!
"Thereafter,! on! February! 26,! 1996,! [respondent]! was! notified! to! appear! before! the! panel! formed! by! the! City! Legal! Officer! (CLO!
Panel)!to!hear!administrative!case!CLO!24D96!filed!against!her!for!grave!misconduct!and!conduct!unbecoming!x!x!x!a!public!officer.!
"[Respondent]!filed!a!motion!to!reconsider!the!resolution!dated!February!21,!1996.!This!motion!was!again!denied!by!the!CLO!panel!
in!its!order!dated!March!6,!1996.!
"Again,! [respondent]! moved! to! reconsider! the! above! order! which! was! likewise! denied! in! the! resolution! of! the! CLO! panel! dated!
March!18,!1996."[7]!
Consequently,!respondent!elevated!the!matter!to!the!Court!of!Appeals!via!a!Petition!for!Certiorari!and!Prohibition.!
Ruling!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!

Citing!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987,[8]!the!Court!of!Appeals!ruled!that!the!authority!to!discipline!herein!respondent!rests!
with!the!regional!director!for!the!National!Capital!Region!of!the!Department!of!Education,!Culture!and!Sports!(DECS),!not!with!the!
city! legal! officer! of! Manila.!It! also! held! that! the! Local! Government! Code! (LGC)! did! not! repeal! the! pertinent! provisions! of! the!
Administrative!Code.Hence,!absent!any!contrary!provision!of!the!LGC,!the!CA!opined!that!disciplinary!authority!over!petitioner!must!
remain!with!the!DECS.!
The!CA!also!noted!that!officers!and!staff!members!of!the!Division!of!City!Schools!were!not!among!those!whom!the!city!mayor!
was!authorized!to!appoint!under!the!LGC.!Hence,!it!ruled!that!respondent!was!not!an!employee!of!the!City!of!Manila,!and!that!the!
city!legal!officer!had!no!authority!to!investigate!her!for!administrative!neglect!or!misconduct!in!office.!
Assuming!arguendo,that!the!city!mayor!was!authorized!to!make!a!subsequent!appointment!to!the!respondents!position!should!
it!become!vacant,!the!CA!held!that!this!power!was!not!retroactive!and!could!not!apply!to!respondent!who!had!been!appointed!by!
the!regional!director!of!the!DECS.!
Dissatisfied,!the!city!legal!officer!of!Manila!lodged!this!Petition!before!this!Court!on!January!21,!1997.[9]!
$
Issue$
$
The! solitary! issue! presented! for! the! Courts! consideration! is! whether! or! not! the! Office! of! the! City! Legal! Officer! of! Manila! has!
jurisdiction!to!investigate!the!complaint!for!grave!misconduct!filed!against!the!respondent.[10]!
$
This$Courts$Ruling$
The!Petition!is!bereft!of!merit.!
Sole$Issue:$Jurisdiction,of,the,City,Legal,Officer$
Petitioners!contend!that!respondent!is!a!city!employee!under!the!supervision!of!the!city!mayor,!because!her!salary!is!paid!by!the!
City!of!Manila.!They!base!this!argument!on!Section!455!(bD1Dv)[11]!of!the!Local!Government!Code!(LGC),!which!authorizes!the!city!
mayor!to!appoint!city!employees!whose!salaries!and!wages!are!wholly!or!mainly!paid!out!of!city!funds;!and!on!Section!455!(bD1D
x),[12]!which!states!that!the!mayor!may!institute!administrative!or!judicial!proceedings!against!erring!city!officials!or!employees.!
Petitioners! contentions! are! not! persuasive.!Under! Book! IV,! Chapter! V,! Section! 7(4)! of! the! Administrative! Code! of! 1987,! the!
power!to!appoint!and!discipline!firstDlevel!employees,!which!includerespondent,!is!specifically!lodged!with!the!regional!director!of!
the!Department!of!Education,!Culture!and!Sports.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!

(4)!Appoint!personnel!to!positions!in!the!first!level!and!casual!and!seasonal!employees;!and!exercise!disciplinary!actions!over!them!in!
accordance!with!the!Civil!Service!Law."!
This!is!also!clear!in!Book!V,!Section!47!(2)!of!the!same!Code;!and!in!Section!32,!Rule!XIV!of!the!Omnibus!Rules!Implementing!
Book!V!of!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987.!
SEC.!32.!The!Secretaries!and!heads!of!agencies!and!instrumentalities,!provinces,!cities,!and!municipalities!shall!have!jurisdiction!to!
investigate!and!decide!matters!involving!disciplinary!action!against!officers!and!employees!under!their!jurisdiction.!x!x!x.!
We! agree! with! the! CA! that! the! LGC! did! not! automatically! repeal! the! provisions! in! the! 1987! Administrative! Code,! contrary! to!
petitioners!argument.!There!is!no!provision!in!the!LGC!expressly!rescinding!the!authority!of!the!DECS!regional!director!to!appoint!
and! exercise! disciplinary! authority! over! firstDlevel! employees.!On! the! other! hand,! implied! repeals! are! not! lightly! presumed! in! the!
absence!of!a!clear!and!unmistakable!showing!of!such!intention.[13]!
Furthermore,!respondents!position!as!senior!legal!officer!in!the!Division!of!City!Schools!is!not!one!of!the!offices!covered!by!the!
city!mayors!power!of!appointment!under!the!LGC.!
SEC.! 454.! Officials! of! the! City! Government.! DDD! (a)! There! shall! be! in! each! city! a! mayor,! a! viceDmayor,! sangguniang! panlungsod!
members,!a!secretary!to!the!sangguniang!panlungsod,!a!city!treasurer,!a!city!assessor,!a!city!accountant,!a!city!budget!officer,!a!city!
planning! and! development! coordinator,! a! city! engineer,! a! city! health! officer,! a! city! civil! registrar,! a! city! administrator,! a! city! legal!
officer,!a!city!veterinarian,!a!city!social!welfare!and!development!officer,!and!a!city!general!services!officer.!
(b)!In!addition!thereto,!the!city!mayor!may!appoint!a!city!architect,!a!city!information!officer,!a!city!agriculturist,!a!city!population!
officer,!a!city!environment!and!natural!resources!officer,!and!a!city!cooperatives!officer.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x.[14]!
Moreover,!petitioners!failed!to!show!a!specific!provision!in!the!LGC!showing!that!the!power!to!discipline!officials!in!the!Division!
of! City! Schools! has! been! devolved! from! the! regional! director! of! the! DECS! to! the! city! mayor.!All! that! Section! 17! (4)! of! the! Local!
Government!Code!states!is!that!the!city!must!provide!support!for!education!and!other!such!services!and!facilities.!
Likewise,! Section! 455! (bD1Dx)! of! the! Local! Government! Code,! which! provides! that! the! city! mayor! may! cause! to! be! instituted!
administrative!or!judicial!proceedings!against!any!official!or!employee!of!the!city,!is!not!necessarily!incompatible!with!the!provisions!

of!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987!authorizing!the!regional!director!to!discipline!national!education!employees.!Nothing!prohibits!
the!mayor!from!filing!complaints!against!respondent!before!the!DECS.!
Petitioners!cite!paragraph!12,!Section!2!(a)!of!Executive!Order!(EO)!503,!which!states!that!devolved!personnel!are!automatically!
reappointed!by!the!local!chief!executive.!Since!respondent!was!deemed!reappointed!by!the!city!mayor,!it!follows!that!the!latter!can!
exercise!disciplinary!authority!over!her.!
We! are! not! convinced.!First,! the! above! provision! applies! to! devolved! personnel,! and! there! is! no! proof! whatsoever! that!
respondent!is!one!of!them.!Second,!even!if!respondent!can!be!considered!as!a!devolved!personnel,!the!cited!paragraph!of!EO!503!
must!not!be!read!in!isolation!from!but!in!conjunction!with!the!other!paragraphs!in!Section!2!(a).!
Thus,! paragraph! 12! DD! along! with! paragraphs! 5,! 6,! 8,! 13! and! 14[15]of! EO! 503! DD! deals! with! safeguards! against! termination,!
reduction!of!pay!and!diminution!in!rank!of!existing!personnel;!it!is!not!about!the!power!of!the!mayor!to!discipline!personnel!of!the!
Division!of!City!Schools.!In!effect,!the!said!provision!serves!more!to!limit!the!appointing!authority!of!the!city!mayor,!whose!acts!must!
be!circumscribed!by!the!aforecited!conditions.!It!is!not!incompatible!and!can!exist!with!aforecited!provisions!of!the!Administrative!
Code.!Indeed,!it!cannot!be!deemed!to!have!divested!the!regional!director!of!his!disciplining!power.!
As!to!petitioners!argument!that!respondents!salary!is!wholly!or!mainly!paid!out!of!city!funds,!suffice!it!to!say!that!the!source!of!
the!wages!is!not!the!only!criteria!in!determining!whether!the!payor!may!be!deemed!the!employer.!In!fact,!the!most!important!factor!
is!the!control!test;!that!is,!who!has!the!power!to!supervise!and!direct!the!work!of!the!employee!concerned?!
Absent! any! contrary! statutory! provision,! the! power! to! appoint! carries! with! it! the! power! to! remove! or! to! discipline.[16]!Since!
respondent!was!appointed!by!the!regional!director!of!DECS,!she!may!be!disciplined!or!removed!by!the!latter!pursuant!to!law.!
Finally,! respondents! primary! duty! is! to! conduct! investigations! of! cases! involving! teaching! and! nonteaching! personnel! of! the!
Division!of!City!Schools!of!Manila.!The!report!on!the!results!of!her!investigations!is!then!submitted!for!final!evaluation!to!the!DECS!
regional! director,! who! may! approve,! disapprove! or! allow! respondent! to! modify! it.!This! fact! clearly! shows! that! supervision! over!
respondent!is!lodged!with!the!regional!director,!not!the!mayor.!
All!in!all,!petitioners!have!not!convinced!us!that!the!Court!of!Appeals!committed!any!reversible!error.!
WHEREFORE,!the!Petition!is!hereby!DISMISSED,and!the!assailed!Decision!AFFIRMED.!Costs!against!petitioners.!
SO$ORDERED.$
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
G.R.$No.$167472$
CIVIL!SERVICE$COMMISSION,!Petitioner,!
D!versus!D!
ENGR.$ALI$P.$DARANGINA,Respondent.!
$
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N,
$,
!!
SANDOVALDGUTIERREZ,!J.:,
!
For!our!resolution!is!the!instant!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari!under!Rule!45!of!the!1997!Rules!of!Civil!Procedure,!as!amended,!
seeking!to!reverse!the!Resolutions!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!dated!October!7,!2004[1]!and!March!18,!2005[2]!in!CADG.R.!SP!No.!71353.!
!!
The!undisputed!facts!are:!
!!
Engr.!Ali!P.!Darangina,!respondent,!was!a!development!management!officer!V!in!the!Office!of!Muslim!Affairs!(OMA).!On!September!
25,! 2000,! he! was! extended! a! temporary! promotional! appointment! as! director! III,! Plans! and! Policy! Services,! in! the! same!

office.!On!October!11,!2000,!the!Civil!Service!Commission!(CSC),!petitioner,!approved!this!temporary!appointment!effective!for!one!
(1)!year!from!the!date!of!its!issuance!unless!sooner!terminated.!
!!
On!October! 31,! 2000,! newly! appointed! OMA! Executive! Director!Acmad!Tomawis!terminated! the! temporary! appointment! of!
respondent!on!the!ground!that!he!is!not!a!career!executive!service!eligible.!Tomawis!then!appointed!Alongan!Sani!as!director!III.!But!
he!is!not!also!a!career!executive!service!eligible.!Thus,!the!CSC!disapproved!his!appointment,!stating!that!respondent!could!only!be!
replaced!by!an!eligible.!
!!
On! appeal! by! respondent,! the! CSC! issued! Resolution! No.! 01D1543! dated!September! 18,! 2001!sustaining! the! termination! of! his!
temporary!appointment!but!ordering!the!payment!of!his!salaries!from!the!time!he!was!appointed!on!September!25,!2000!until!his!
separation!on!October!31,!2000.!
!!
Respondent!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration.!On!March!20,!2002,!the!CSC!issued!Resolution!No.!02D439!granting!the!same!with!
modification!in!the!sense!that!respondent!should!be!paid!his!backwages!from!the!time!his!employment!was!terminated!on!October!
11,!2000!until!September$24,$2001,!the$expiration$of$his$one$year$temporary$appointment.!
!!
On!April!3,!2002,!respondent!filed!a!motion!for!partial!reconsideration,!praying!for!his!reinstatement!as!director!III!and!payment!of!
backwages!up!to!the!time!he!shall!be!reinstated.!
!!
On!June! 5,! 2002,! the! CSC! issued! Resolution! No.! 02D782! denying! respondents! motion! for! partial! reconsideration! being! a! second!
motion!for!reconsideration!which!is!prohibited.!
!!
Respondent! then! filed! a! petition! for! review! with! the! Court! of! Appeals,! docketed! as! CADG.R.! SP! No.! 71353.!But! in! its! Resolution!
of!February! 27,! 2004,! the! petition! was! dismissed! for! his! failure! to!implead!the! OMA! Executive! Director! and! the! incumbent! of! the!
disputed!position.!
!!
Respondent!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration.!
!!
In!a!Resolution!dated!October!7,!2004,!the!Court!of!Appeals!reconsidered!its!Decision!of!February!27,!2004,!thus:!
!!

ACCORDINGLY,! our! Decision! of!February! 27,! 2004!is! RECONSIDERED! and! the! assailed! CSC! resolutions! are! hereby!
MODIFIED!in!that!the$petitioner$is$reinstated$to$his$post$to$finish$his$12_month$term$with$backwages$from$the$date$
of$his$removal$until$reinstatement.!
SO!ORDERED.!

!!
The!CSC!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration!but!it!was!denied!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!a!Resolution!dated!March!28,!2005.!
!!
Section!27,!Chapter!5,!Subtitle!A,!Title!I,!Book!V!of!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987,!as!amended,!classifying!the!appointment!status!
of!public!officers!and!employees!in!the!career!service,!reads:!
!!
SEC.!27.!Employment,Status.!Appointment!in!the!career!service!shall!be!permanent!or!temporary.!
!!
(1)!!!Permanent,status.!A!permanent!appointment!shall!be!issued!to!a!person!who!meets!all!the!requirements!for!
the!position!to!which!he!is!being!appointed,!including!appropriate!eligibility!prescribed,!in!accordance!with!
the!provisions!of!law,!rules!and!standards!promulgated!in!pursuance!thereof.!
!!
(2)!!!Temporary, appointment.! In! the! absence! of! appropriate!eligibles!and! it! becomes! necessary! in! the! public!
interest! to! fill! a! vacancy,! a! temporary! appointment! shall! be! issued! to! a! person! who! meets! all! the!
requirements! for! the! position! to! which! he! is! being! appointed! except! the! appropriate! civil! service!
eligibility:!Provided,! That! such! temporary! appointment! shall! not! exceed! twelve! months,! but! the! appointee!
may!be!replaced!sooner!if!a!qualified!civil!service!eligible!becomes!available.!
!
It!is!clear!that!a!permanent!appointment!can!issue!only!to!a!person!who!possesses!all!the!requirements!for!the!position!to!which!he!
is!being!appointed,!including!the!appropriate!eligibility.[3]!Differently!stated,!as!a!rule,!no!person!may!be!appointed!to!a!public!office!
unless!he!or!she!possesses!the!requisite!qualifications.!The!exception!to!the!rule!is!where,!in!the!absence!of!appropriate!eligibles,!he!
or! she! may! be! appointed! to! it! merely! in! a! temporary! capacity.!Such! a! temporary! appointment! is! not! made! for! the! benefit! of! the!
appointee.!Rather,!an!acting!or!temporary!appointment!seeks!to!prevent!a!hiatus!in!the!discharge!of!official!functions!by!authorizing!
a! person! to! discharge! the! same! pending! the! selection! of! a! permanent! appointee.[4]!In!Cuadra,v., Cordova,[5]!this! Court! defined! a!
temporary! appointment! as! one! made! in! an! acting! capacity,! the! essence! of! which! lies! in! its! temporary! character! and!
its!terminability!at!pleasure!by!the!appointing!power.!Thus,!the!temporary!appointee!accepts!the!position!with!the!condition!that!he!
shall!surrender!the!office!when!called!upon!to!do!so!by!the!appointing!authority.!Under!Section!27!(2),!Chapter!5,!Subtitle!A,!Title!I,!

Book!V!of!the!same!Code,!the!term!of!a!temporary!appointment!shall!be!12!months,!unless!sooner!terminated!by!the!appointing!
authority.!Such!preDtermination!of!a!temporary!appointment!may!be!with!or!without!cause!as!the!appointee!serves!merely!at!the!
pleasure!of!the!appointing!power.[6]!
!!
Under!the!Revised!Qualifications!Standards!prescribed!by!the!CSC,!career!executive!service!eligibility!is!a!necessary!qualification!for!
the!position!of!director!III!in!Plans!and!Policy!Services,!OMA.!It!is!not!disputed!that!on!September!25,!2000,!when!respondent!was!
extended! an! appointment,! he! was! not! eligible! to! the! position,! not! being! a! holder! of! such! eligibility.!Hence,! his! appointment! was!
properly! designated! as! temporary.!Then! on!October! 31,! 2000,! newlyDappointed! OMA! Executive! Director!Tomawis!recalled!
respondents!temporary!appointment!and!replaced!him!by!appointing!Alongan!Sani.!It!turned!out,!however,!that!Sani!is!not!likewise!
qualified! for! the! post.!A! game! of! musical! chairs! then! followed.!Sani!was! subsequently! replaced! by!Tapa!Umal,! who! in! turn,! was!
succeeded! by!Camad!Edres,! and! later,! was! replaced! by! Ismael!Amod.!All! these! appointees! were! also! disqualified! for! lack! of! the!
required!eligibility.!
!!
The!Court!of!Appeals!ruled!that!such!replacements!are!not!valid!as!the!persons!who!replaced!respondent!are!not!also!eligible.!Also,!
since!he!was!replaced!without!just!cause,!he!is!entitled!to!serve!the!remaining!term!of!his!12Dmonth!term!with!salaries.!
!!
This! Court! has! ruled! that! where! a! nonDeligible! holds! a! temporary! appointment,! his! replacement! by! another! nonDeligible! is! not!
prohibited.[7]!
!!
Moreover,! in!Achacoso[8]!cited! earlier,! this! Court! held! that! when! a! temporary! appointee! is! required! to! relinquish! his! office,! he! is!
being!separated!precisely!because!his!term!has!expired.!Thus,!reinstatement!will!not!lie!in!favor!of!respondent.!Starkly!put,!with$the$
expiration$of$his$term$upon$his$replacement,$there$is$no$longer$any$remaining$term$to$be$served.!Consequently,!he!can!no!longer!
be!reinstated.!
!!
As!to!whether!respondent!is!entitled!to!back!salaries,!it!is!not!disputed!that!he!was!paid!his!salary!during!the!entire!twelveDmonth!
period! in! spite! of! the! fact! that! he! served! only! from!September! 25,! 2000!to!October! 31,! 2000,! or! for! only! one! month! and! six!
days.!Clearly,!he!was!overpaid.!
!!
WHEREFORE,!this! Court!GRANTS!the! petition! and!REVERSES!the! assailed! Resolutions! of! the! Court! of! Appeals.!Considering! that!
respondents!employment!was!validly!terminated!on!October!31,!2000,!he!is!ordered!to!refund!the!salaries!he!received!from!that!
date!up!to!September!24,!2001.!

!!

No!costs.!

!!
SO$ORDERED.$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
GR$160791$
SALES,$petitioner$vs$CARREON,$respondent$
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N,
,
!!
SANDOVALDGUTIERREZ,!J.:,
!!
!!
For!our!resolution!is!the!instant!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari!assailing!the!Decision[1]!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!dated!September!
16,!2003!in!CADG.R.!SP!No.!75515.!
!!

During! the! May! 2001! elections,! then! Mayor! Joseph! Cedrick! O.! Ruiz! of!Dapitan!City,! running! for! reDelection,! was! defeated! by!
respondent!Rodolfo!H.!Carreon,!Jr.!
!!
On!June!1,!18!and!27,!2001,!his!last!month!in!office,!then!Dapitan!City!Mayor!Ruiz!issued!83!appointments,!including!those!of!herein!
petitioners.!
!!
On!July!1,!2001,!the!newly!elected!Mayor,!Rodolfo!H.!Carreon,!Jr.,!herein!respondent,!assumed!office.!
!!
On!July!2,!2001,!respondent!issued!Memorandum!Orders!Nos.!1!and!2!revoking!the!83!appointments!signed!by!his!predecessor!on!
the!ground!that!the!latter!violated!Civil!Service!Commission!(CSC)!Resolution!No.!01D988!in!relation!to!CSC!Memorandum!Circular!
No.!7,!Series!of!2001,!imposing!a!ban!on!issuing!appointments!in!the!civil!service!during!the!election!period.!Thereupon,!respondent!
prohibited!the!release!of!the!salaries!and!benefits!of!the!83!appointees.!
!!
On!July!10,!2001,!Patricio!Sales,!one!of!herein!petitioners,!in!his!capacity!as!president!of!the!Dapitan!City!Government!Employees!
Association,!wrote!the!CSC!Regional!Office!No.!IX!requesting!its!ruling!on!the!matter.!
!!
On!July!16!and!August!3,!2001,!respondent!sent!the!said!Office!a!position!paper!justifying!his!action,!contending!that!the!questioned!
appointments!were!not!only!issued!in!bulk!but!that!there!was!no!urgent!need!to!fill!those!positions.!
!!
On!August!17,!2001,!the!CSC!Regional!Office!No.!IX!issued!an!Omnibus!Order,!the!dispositive!portion!of!which!reads:!
WHEREFORE,!all!premises!considered:!
1.!!!!The!eightyDthree!(83)!appointments!issued!by!then!Mayor!Joseph!Cedrick!O.!Ruiz,!including!those!issued!by!
the! herein! requesting! parties,! are,! therefore! not! considered! mass! appointments,! as! defined! under! CSC!
Resolution!No.!01D0988!and!are!thus,!VALID!and!EFFECTIVE.!
!!
2.!!!!Memorandum! Orders! Nos.! 1! and! 2,! Series! of! 2001,! issued! by! Mayor! Rodolfo! H.! Carreon,! Jr.,! are! hereby!
declared!NULL!and!VOID,!and!accordingly,!
!!
3.!!!!The!LGUDDapitan!is!hereby!directed!to!pay!the!salaries!and!other!emoluments!to!which!the!83!appointments!
are!entitled!to!pursuant!to!the!appointments!issued!to!them.!
!!

On!appeal!by!respondent,!the!CSC!En,Banc,!on!June!17,!2002,!issued!Resolution!No.!020828!reversing!the!assailed!Omnibus!Order!of!
the!CSC!Regional!Office!No.!IX,!thus:!
!!
WHEREFORE,!premises!considered,!the!Omnibus!Order!dated!August!17,!2001of!the!Civil!Service!Commission!Regional!
Office!No.!IX!is!REVERSED!and!SET!ASIDE.!The!Commission!hereby!rules,!as!follows:!
!!
1.!!!!!!The!approval!of!all!83!appointments!issued!by!then!Mayor!J.!Cedrick!O.!Ruiz!is!revoked!for!being!violative!of!
Republic!Act!No.!7041,!CSC!Memorandum!Circular!No.!18!s.!1988,!as!amended,!CSC!Resolution!No.!963332!
on!its!accreditation!and!CSC!Resolution!No.!01D0988.!
!!
2.!!!!!!All!promoted!employees!are!reverted!to!their!previous!position;!and!
!!
3.!!!!!!Memorandum!Order!No.!1!and!Memorandum!Order!No.!2!issued!by!incumbent!Mayor!Rodolfo!H.!Carreon,!
Jr.!are!hereby!declared!null!and!void.!
!!
The!CSC!En,Banc,held!that!the!positions!in!question!were!published!and!declared!vacant!prior!to!the!existence!of!any!vacancy.!
!!
Petitioners! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration! but! it! was! denied! in! Resolution! No.! 030049! dated!January! 16,! 2003!by! the!
CSC!En,Banc.!
!!
On!February!13,!2003,!petitioners!filed!with!the!Court!of!Appeals!a!petition!for!review.!On!September!16,!2003,!the!appellate!court!
rendered!its!Decision!dismissing!the!petition,!sustaining!the!CSCs!finding!that!the!positions!to!which!the!petitioners!were!appointed!
were!already!reported!and!published!even!before!they!had!been!declared!vacant,!in!violation!of!Sections!2!and!3!of!Republic!Act!
(R.A.)!No.!7041;[2]!and!that!there!was!no!first!level!representative!to!the!Personnel!Section!Board!who!should!have!participated!in!
the!screening!of!candidates!for!vacancy!in!the!first!level.!
!!
Petitioners! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration,! but! this! was! denied! by! the! Court! of! Appeals! in! its! Resolution! dated!November! 17,!
2003.!
!!
Hence,!the!instant!petition.!
!!

This!case!is!a!typical!example!of!the!practice!of!outgoing!local!chief!executives!to!issue!midnight!appointments,!especially!after!their!
successors! have! been! proclaimed.!It! does! not! only! cause! animosities! between! the! outgoing! and! the! incoming! officials,! but! also!
affects! efficiency! in! local! governance.!Those! appointed! tend! to! devote! their! time! and! energy! in! defending! their! appointments!
instead!of!attending!to!their!functions.!However,!not!all!midnight!appointments!are!invalid.[3]!Each!appointment!must!be!judged!on!
the!basis!of!the!nature,!character,!and!merits!of!the!individual!appointment!and!the!circumstances!surrounding!the!same.[4]!It!is!
only!when!the!appointments!were!made!en,masse!by!the!outgoing!administration!and!shown!to!have!been!made!through!hurried!
maneuvers! and! under! circumstances! departing! from! good! faith,! morality,! and! propriety! that! this! Court! has! struck!
down!midnight!appointments.[5]!
$!
It! is! State! policy! that! opportunities! for! government! employment! shall! be! open! to! all! qualified! citizens! and! employees! shall! be!
selected!on!the!basis!of!fitness!to!perform!the!duties!and!assume!the!responsibilities!of!the!positions.[6]!It!was!precisely!in!order!to!
ensure!transparency!and!equal!opportunity!in!the!recruitment!and!hiring!of!government!personnel,!that!Republic!Act!No.!7041!was!
enacted.!Section!2!provides:!
!!
SEC.!2.!Duty,of,Personnel,Officers.!It!shall!be!the!duty!of!all!Chief!Personnel!or!Administrative!Officers!of!all!branches,!
subdivisions,! instrumentalities! and! agencies! of! the! Government,! including! governmentDowned! or! controlled!
corporations! with! original! charters,! and! local! government! units,! to! post! in! three! (3)! conspicuous! places! of! their!
offices!for!a!period!ten!(10)!days!a!complete!list!of!all!existing!vacant!positions!in!their!respective!offices!which!are!
authorized!to!be!filled,!and!to!transmit!a!copy!of!such!list!and!the!corresponding!qualification!standards!to!the!Civil!
Service! Commission! not! later! than! the! tenth! day! of! every! month.!Vacant$ positions$ shall$ not$ be$ filled$ until$ after$
publication:!Provided,,however,!that!vacant!and!unfilled!positions!that!are:!
!!
a)!!!!!!primarily!confidential;!
b)!!!!!!policyDdetermining;!
c)!!!!!!highly!technical;!
d)!!!!!!coDterminous!with!that!of!the!appointing!authority;!or!
e)!!!!!limited!to!the!duration!of!a!particular!project,!
!!
shall!be!excluded!from!the!list!required!by!law.!
!!

SEC.!3.!Publication,of,Vacancies.!The!Chairman!and!members!of!the!Civil!Service!Commission!shall!publish!once!every!
quarter!a!complete!list!of!all!the!existing!vacant!positions!in!the!Government!throughout!the!country,!including!the!
qualification! standards! required! for! each! position! and,! thereafter,! certify! under! oath! to! the! completion! of!
publication.!Copies!of!such!publication!shall!be!sold!at!cost!to!the!public!and!distributed!free!of!charge!to!the!various!
personnel! office! of! the! government! where! they! shall! be! available! for! inspection! by! the! public:Provided,! That! said!
publication!shall!be!posted!by!the!Chief!Personnel!or!Administrative!Officer!of!all!local!government!units!in!at!least!
three!(3)!public!and!conspicuous!places!in!their!respective!municipalities!and!provinces:!Provided,,further,!That!any!
vacant!position!published!therein!shall!be!open!to!any!qualified!person!who!does!not!necessarily!belong!to!the!same!
office! with! the! vacancy! or! who! occupies! a! position! nextDinDrank! to! the! vacancy:!Provided,, finally,!That$ the$ Civil$
Service$ Commission$ shall$ not$ act$ on$ any$ appointment$ to$ fill$ up$ a$ vacant$ position$ unless$ the$ same$ has$ been$
reported$to$and$published$by$the$Commission.!
!!

!!
The!foregoing!provisions!are!clear!and!need!no!interpretation.!The!CSC!is!required!to!publish!the!lists!of!vacant!positions!and!such!
publication! shall! be! posted! by! the! chief! personnel! or! administrative! officer! of! all! local! government! units! in! the! designated!
places.!The!vacant!positions!may!only!be!filled!by!the!appointing!authority!after!they!have!been!reported!to!the!CSC!as!vacant!and!
only!after!publication.!
!!
Here,!the!publication!of!vacancies!was!made!even!before!the!positions!involved!actually!became!vacant.!Clearly,!respondents!action!
violated!Section!2!of!R.A.!No.!7041!cited!earlier.!
!!
Moreover,!the!CSC!found!that!there!was!no!firstDlevel!representative!appointed!to!the!Personnel!Selection!Board,!which!deliberated!
on!the!appointments!to!firstDlevel!positions.!
!!
CSC!Memorandum!Circular!No.!18,!series!of!1988,!as!amended,!provides!that!the!Personnel!Selection!Board!shall!be!composed!of!
the!following:!
!!
a.!!!!!!!Official!of!department/agency!directly!responsible!for!personnel!management;!
!!
b.!!!!!!Representative!of!management;!
!!

c.!!!!!!!Representative!of!organizational!unit!which!may!be!an!office,!department,!or!division!where!the!vacancy!is;!
!!
d.!!!!!!Representative$of$rank_and_file$employees,$one$(1)$for$the$first_level$and!one!(1)!for!the!secondDlevel,!who!
shall!both!be!chosen!by!duly!registered/accredited!employees!association!in!the!department!or!agency.!The$
former$ shall$ sit$ during$ the$ screening$ of$ candidates$ for$ vacancy$ in$ the$ first_level,! while! the! latter! shall!
participate! in! the! screening! of! candidates! for! vacancy! in! the! second! level.! In! case! where! there! is! no!
employees! association! in! the! department! or! agency,! the! representative! shall! be! chosen! at! large! by! the!
employees!through!a!general!election!to!be!called!for!the!purpose.!
!!

!!
Petitioners!admitted!that!after!the!retirement!on!April!22,!2000!of!Beltran!Faconete,!the!firstDlevel!representative!to!the!Personnel!
Selection! Board,! no! other! firstDlevel! representative! to! replace! him! was! chosen! by! the! Dapitan! City! Government! Employees!
Association.!Yet,! the! city! government! Personnel! Selection! Board! proceeded! to! deliberate! and! recommend! the! appointments! of!
applicants!to!the!43!firstDlevel!positions.!Petitioners!contend,!however,!that!although!there!was!no!such!representative,!the!action!of!
the!Board!is!still!valid.!
!!
Petitioners!contention!lacks!merit.!
!!
Section!20,!Rule!VI!of!the!Omnibus!Rules!Implementing!Book!VDA!of!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987!(also!known!as!the!Civil!
Service!Law),!provides:!
!!
SEC.!20.!Notwithstanding!the!initial!approval!of!an!appointment,!the!same!may!be!recalled!on!any!of!the!following!
grounds:!
!!
a)!!!!!!!!nonDcompliance!with!the!procedures/criteria!provided!in!the!agencys!Merit!Promotion!Plan;!
!!
b)!!!!!!!failure!to!pass!through!the!agencys!Selection/Promotion!Board;!
!!
c)!!!!!!!!violation!of!the!existing!collective!bargaining!agreement!between!management!and!employees!relative!to!
promotion;!or!
!!

d)!!!!!!violation$of$other$existing$civil$service$laws,$rules$and$regulations.!
!!
Verily,! in! deliberating! and! recommending! to! former! Mayor! Ruiz! the! appointments! of! herein! petitioners! to! the! vacant!
positions!sans!the! required! representation,! the! Board! violated! the! above! CSC! Rules.!Hence,! the! appointments! he! issued! are! not!
valid.!They! may! be! recalled.! In!Mathay,, Jr., v., Civil, Service, Commission,[7]!this! Court! upheld! the! authority! of! the! CSC! to! take!
appropriate! action! on! all! appointments,!including$ its$ authority$ to$ recall$ appointments$ made$ in$ disregard$ of$ the$ applicable$
provisions$of$Civil$Service$Law$and$regulations.!
!!
In!sum,!for!being!in!violation!of!Section!2,!R.A.!No.!7041,!CSC!Memorandum!Circular!No.!18,!as!amended,!and!Section!20,!Rule!VI!of!
the!Omnibus!Rules!Implementing!Book!VDA!of!the!Administrative!Code!of!1987,!the!appointments!of!the!aboveDnamed!petitioners!
are!declared!void.!
!!
WHEREFORE,!the!Court!DENIES!the!petition!and!AFFIRMS!the!assailed!Decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!CADG.R.!SP!No.!755151.SO$
ORDERED.$
ATTY.$VICENTE$E.$SALUMBIDES,$JR.,$and!GLENDA$ARAA,!
Petitioners,_$versus$_!
OFFICE$OF$THE$OMBUDSMAN,$RICARDO$AGON,$RAMON$VILLASANTA,$ELMER$DIZON,SALVADOR$ADUL,$and$AGNES$FABIAN,!
Respondents,!
$!
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N!
$!
CARPIO$MORALES,$J.:!
!!
Petitioners! Vicente! Salumbides,! Jr.! (Salumbides)! and! Glenda! Araa! (Glenda)! challenge! the!October! 11,! 2007! Decision! and! the!
December!13,!2007!Resolution!of!the!Court!of!Appeals[1]!in!CADG.R.!SP!No.!96889!affirming!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsmans!decision!
finding!them!guilty!of!Simple!Neglect!of!Duty.!
!!
Salumbides!and!Glenda!were!appointed!in!July!2001!as!Municipal!Legal!Officer/Administrator!and!Municipal!Budget!Officer,!
respectively,!of!Tagkawayan,!Quezon.!
!!

Towards! the! end! of! 2001,! Mayor! Vicente! Salumbides! III! (the! mayor)! saw! the! urgent! need! to! construct! a! twoDclassroom!
building!with!fence!(the!projects)!for!the!Tagkawayan!Municipal!High!School[2]!(TMHS)!since!the!public!school!in!the!poblacion!area!
would!no!longer!admit!high!school!freshmen!starting!school!year!2002D2003.!On!how!to!solve!the!classroom!shortage,!the!mayor!
consulted! Salumbides! who! suggested! that! the! construction! of! the! twoDclassroom! building! be! charged! to! the! account! of! the!
Maintenance! and! Other! Operating! Expenses/! Repair! and! Maintenance! of! Facilities! (MOOE/RMF)! and! implemented! by!
administration,!as!had!been!done!in!a!previous!classroom!building!project!of!the!former!mayor.!
!!
Upon! consultation,! Glenda! advised! Salumbides! in! December! 2001,! that! there! were! no! more! available! funds! that! could! be!
taken!from!the!MOOE/RMF,!but!the!savings!of!the!municipal!government!were!adequate!to!fund!the!projects.!She!added,!however,!
that!the!approval!by!the!Sangguniang,Bayan!of!a!proposed!supplemental!budget!must!be!secured.!
!
The!members!of!the!Sangguniang,Bayan!having!already!gone!on!recess!for!the!Christmas!holidays,!Glenda!and!Salumbides!
advised! the! mayor! to! source! the! funds! from! theP1,000,000! MOOE/RMF! allocation! in! the! approved! Municipal! Annual! Budget! for!
2002.[3]!
!
The!mayor!thus!ordered!on!January!8,!2002!Municipal!Engineer!Jose!Aquino!(Aquino)!to!proceed!with!the!construction!of!the!
projects!based!on!the!program!of!work!and!bill!of!materials!he!(Aquino)!prepared!with!a!total!cost!estimate!of!P222,000.!
!
Upon!advice!of!Municipal!Planning!and!Development!Officer!Hernan!Jason!(Jason),!the!mayor!included!the!projects!in!the!list!
of!local!government!projects!scheduled!for!bidding!on!January!25,!2002!which,!together!with!the!January!31,!2002!public!bidding,!
failed.!
!!
The!mayor!was!to!admit!later!his!expectation!or!assumption!of!risk!on!reimbursement:!
!!
x!x!x!It!was!my!thinking!that!even!if!a!bidder!emerges!and!gets!these!2!projects!which!were!at!the!time!onD
going!(although!it!was!also!my!thinking!then!that!no!bidder!would!possibly!bid!for!these!2!projects!as!these!were!costD
estimated!very!lowDP150,000!for!the!2Droom!school!building!P72,000!for!the!fencing)!he!(bidder)!would!be!reasonable!
enough!to!reimburse!what!I!had!so!far!spen[t]!for!the!project.!I!said!I!because!up!to!the!time!of!the!failed!2!biddings!I!
have!shouldered!the!vale!of!the!laborers!and!I!requisitioned!some!materials!on!credit!on!my!own!personal!account,!
and! not! a! single! centavo! was! at! the! time! disbursed! by! our! municipal! treasury! until! all! requirements! for! negotiated!

purchase!of!the!materials!for!the!project!had!been!accomplished.!As!a!matter!of!fact,!payments!for!the!expenses!on!
these!2!projects!have!been!made!only!starting!19!March!2002.!x!x!x[4]!(underscoring!supplied)!
!!
The! construction! of! the! projects! commenced! without! any! approved! appropriation! and! ahead! of! the! public!
bidding.!Salumbides!was!of!the!opinion!that!the!projects!were!regular!and!legal,!based!on!an!earlier!project!that!was!implemented!in!
the!same!manner,!using!the!same!source!of!fund!and!for!the!same!reason!of!urgency!which!was!allowed!because!the!building!was!
considered!merely!temporary!as!the!TMHS!is!set!to!be!transferred!to!an!8Dhectare!lot!which!the!municipal!government!is!presently!
negotiating!to!buy.[5]!
!
Meanwhile,! Aquino! suggested! to! the!Sangguniang, Bayan!the! adoption! of! model! guidelines! in! the! implementation! of!
infrastructure!projects!to!be!executed!by!administration,!while!Councilor!Coleta!Sandro!(Coleta)!sponsored!a!Resolution!to!ratify!the!
projects! and! to! authorize! the! mayor! to! enter! into! a! negotiated! procurement.!Both! actions! did! not! merit! the! approval! of!
the!Sangguniang,Bayan.!
!!
On! May! 13,! 2002,! herein! respondents!Ricardo! Agon,! Ramon! Villasanta,! Elmer! Dizon,! Salvador! Adul! and! Agnes! Fabian,!all!
members!of!the!Sangguniang,Bayan!of!Tagkawayan,!filed!with!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!a!complaint[6]!against!Salumbides!and!
Glenda!(hereafter!petitioners),!the!mayor,!Coleta,!Jason!and!Aquino.!
!
The!administrative!aspect!of!the!case,!docketed!as!Case!No.!OMBDLDAD02D0276DE,!charged!petitioners!et,al.!with!Dishonesty,!
Grave!Misconduct,!Gross!Neglect!of!Duty,!Conduct!Prejudicial!to!the!Best!Interest!of!the!Service,!and!violation!of!the!Commission!on!
Audit!(COA)!Rules!and!the!Local!Government!Code.!
!!
By!Order!of!June!14,!2002,!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman,!denied!the!prayer!to!place!petitioners!et,al.!under!preventive!suspension!
pending! investigation.!By! Order! datedFebruary! 1,! 2005,! approved! on!April! 11,! 2005,! it! denied! the! motion! for! reconsideration!
but!dropped! the! mayor! and! Coleta,! both! elective! officials,! as! respondents! in! the! administrative! case,! the! 2004! elections! having!
mooted!the!case.!The!parties!were!thereupon!directed!to!submit!their!respective!verified!position!papers!to!which!petitioners,!Jason!
and!Aquino!complied!by!submitting!a!consolidated!position!paper!on!May!19,!2005.!
!
Meanwhile,!in!response!to!the!subpoena!duces,tecum!issued!by!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!on!February!18,!2005!requiring!the!
regional!officer!of!the!COA!to!submit!the!postDaudit!report!on!the!projects,!Celerino!Alviar,!COA!State!Auditor!II!claimed!by!Affidavit!

of!May!23,!2005!that!the!required!documents!were!among!those!razed!by!fire!on!April!14,!2004!that!hit!the!Office!of!the!Municipal!
Accountant!where!they!were!temporarily!stored!due!to!lack!of!space!at!the!Provincial!Auditors!Office.!
!!
On!October!17,!2005,!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!approved!the!September!9,!2005!Memorandum!absolving!Jason!and!Aquino,!
and! finding! petitioners! guilty! of! Simple! Neglect! of! Duty,! for! which! they! were!meted! the! penalty! of! suspension! from! office! for! a!
maximum!period!of!six!months!with!a!stern!warning!against!a!similar!repetition.!It!also!approved!on!November!2,!2006!the!March!
27,!2006!Order[7]!denying!the!motion!for!reconsideration.!
!!
Their!recourse!to!the!appellate!court!having!failed,!petitioners!come!before!this!Court!via!Rule!45!of!the!Rules!of!Court.!
For! nonDcompliance! with! the! rule! on! certification! against! forum! shopping,! the! petition! merits! outright! dismissal.!The!
verification!portion!of!the!petition!does!not!carry!a!certification!against!forum!shopping.[8]!
!!
The! Court! has! distinguished! the! effects! of! nonDcompliance! with! the! requirement! of! verification! and! that! of! certification! against!
forum!shopping.!A!defective,verification!shall!be!treated!as!an!unsigned!pleading!and!thus!produces!no!legal!effect,!subject!to!the!
discretion!of!the!court!to!allow!the!deficiency!to!be!remedied,!while!the,failure,to,certify,against,forum,shopping!shall!be!cause!for!
dismissal!without!prejudice,!unless!otherwise!provided,!and!is!not!curable!by!amendment!of!the!initiatory!pleading.[9]!
!
Petitioners!disregard!of!the!rules!was!not!the!first.!Their!motion!for!extension!of!time!to!file!petition!was!previously!denied!
by!Resolution!of!January!15,!2008[10]!for!nonDcompliance!with!the!required!showing!of!competent!proof!of!identity!in!the!Affidavit!
of! Service.!The! Court,! by! Resolution! of!March! 4,! 2008,[11]!later! granted! their! motion! for! reconsideration! with! motion! to! admit!
appeal!(Motion!with!Appeal)!that!was!filed!on!February!18,!2008!or!the!last!day!of!filing!within!the!extended!period.!
!!
Moreover,!in!their!Manifestation/Motion[12]!filed!a!day!later,!petitioners!prayed!only!for!the!admission!of!nine!additional!copies!of!
the! Motion! with! Appeal! due! to! honest! inadvertence! in! earlier! filing! an! insufficient! number! of! copies.!Petitioners! were! less! than!
candid! when! they! surreptitiously! submitted! a! Motion! with! Appeal! which! is!different!from! the! first! set! they! had! submitted.!The!
second! set! of! Appeal! includes! specific! Assignment! of! Errors[13]!and! already! contains! a! certification! against! forum!
shopping[14]!embedded!in!the!Verification.!The!two!different!Verifications!were!notarized!by!the!same!notary!public!and!bear!the!
same! date! and! document! number.[15]!The! rectified! verification! with! certification,! however,! was! filed! beyond! the! reglementary!
period.!
!!
Its!lapses!aside,!the!petition!just!the!same!merits!denial.!

!!
Petitioners!urge!this!Court!to!expand!the!settled!doctrine!of!condonation[16]!to!cover!coterminous!appointive!officials!who!were!
administratively! charged! along! with! the! reelected! official/appointing! authority! with! infractions! allegedly! committed! during! their!
preceding!term.!
!!
The!Court!rejects!petitioners!thesis.!
!!
More!than!60!years!ago,!the!Court!in!Pascual,v.,Hon.,Provincial,Board,of,Nueva,Ecija[17]!issued!the!landmark!ruling!that!prohibits!
the! disciplining! of! an! elective! official! for! a! wrongful! act! committed! during! his! immediately! preceding! term! of! office.!The! Court!
explained!that![t]he!underlying!theory!is!that!each!term!is!separate!from!other!terms,!and!that!the!reelection!to!office!operates!as!a!
condonation!of!the!officers!previous!misconduct!to!the!extent!of!cutting!off!the!right!to!remove!him!therefor.[18]!
!!
The!Court!should!never!remove!a!public!officer!for!acts!done!prior!to!his!present!term!of!office.!To!do!otherwise!would!
be!to!deprive!the!people!of!their!right!to!elect!their!officers.!When!the!people!elect[e]d!a!man!to!office,!it!must!be!
assumed!that!they!did!this!with!knowledge!of!his!life!and!character,!and!that!they!disregarded!or!forgave!his!faults!or!
misconduct,!if!he!had!been!guilty!of!any.!It!is!not!for!the!court,!by!reason!of!such!faults!or!misconduct[,]!to!practically!
overrule!the!will!of!the!people.[19]!(underscoring!supplied)!
!!
Lizares, v., Hechanova,, et, al.[20]!replicated! the! doctrine.!The! Court! dismissed! the! petition! in! that! case! for! being! moot,! the!
therein!petitioner!having!been!duly!reelected,!is!no!longer!amenable!to!administrative!sanctions.[21]!
!!
Ingco, v., Sanchez,, et, al.[22]!clarified! that! the! condonation! doctrine! does!not! apply! to! a!criminal!case.[23]!Luciano, v., The,
Provincial,Governor,,et,al.,[24]!Olivarez,v.,Judge,Villaluz,[25]!and!Aguinaldo,v.,Santos[26],echoed!the!qualified!rule!that!reelection!of!
a!public!official!does!not!bar!prosecution!for!crimes!committed!by!him!prior!thereto.!
!!
Consistently,!the!Court!has!reiterated!the!doctrine!in!a!string!of!recent!jurisprudence!including!two!cases!involving!a!Senator!
and!a!Member!of!the!House!of!Representatives.[27]!
!!
Salalima,v.,Guingona,,Jr.[28]!and!Mayor,Garcia,v.,Hon.,Mojica[29],reinforced!the!doctrine.!The!condonation!rule!was!applied!even!if!
the!administrative!complaint!was!not!filed!before!the!reelection!of!the!public!official,!and!even!if!the!alleged!misconduct!occurred!
four!days!before!the!elections,!respectively.!Salalima!did!not!distinguish!as!to!the!date!of!filing!of!the!administrative!complaint,!as!

long!as!the!alleged!misconduct!was!committed!during!the!prior!term,!the!precise!timing!or!period!of!which!Garcia!did!not!further!
distinguish,!as!long!as!the!wrongdoing!that!gave!rise!to!the!public!officials!culpability!was!committed!prior!to!the!date!of!reelection.!
!!
Petitioners!theory!is!not!novel.!
!!
A!parallel!question!was!involved!in!Civil,Service,Commission,v.,Sojor[30]!where!the!Court!found!no!basis!to!broaden!the!scope!of!the!
doctrine!of!condonation:!
!!
Lastly,! We! do! not! agree! with! respondents! contention! that! his! appointment! to! the! position! of! president! of!
NORSU,!despite!the!pending!administrative!cases!against!him,!served!as!a!condonation!by!the!BOR!of!the!alleged!acts!
imputed!to!him.!The!doctrine!this!Court!laid!down!in!Salalima,v.,Guingona,,Jr.!and!Aguinaldo,v.,Santos!are!inapplicable!
to!the!present!circumstances.!Respondents!in!the!mentioned!cases!are!elective!officials,!unlike!respondent!here!who!
is!an!appointed!official.!Indeed,!election!expresses!the!sovereign!will!of!the!people.!Under!the!principle!of!vox,populi,
est,suprema,lex,,the$re_election$of$a$public$official$may,$indeed,$supersede$a$pending$administrative$case.$The$same$
cannot$ be$ said$ of$ a$ re_appointment$ to$ a$ non_career$ position.!There! is! no! sovereign! will! of! the! people! to! speak!
of!when!the!BOR!reDappointed!respondent!Sojor!to!the!post!of!university!president.[31]!(emphasis!and!underscoring!
supplied)!
!Contrary! to! petitioners! asseveration,! the! nonDapplication! of! the! condonation! doctrine! to!appointive!officials! does! not! violate! the!
right!to!equal!protection!of!the!law.!
!!
In! the! recent! case! of!Quinto, v., Commission, on, Elections,[32]!the! Court! applied! the! fourDfold! test! in! an! equal! protection!
challenge[33]!against! the! resignDtoDrun! provision,! wherein! it! discussed! the! material! and! substantive! distinctions! between! elective!
and!appointive!officials!that!could!well!apply!to!the!doctrine!of!condonation:!
!!
The! equal! protection! of! the! law! clause! is! against! undue! favor! and! individual! or! class! privilege,! as! well! as! hostile!
discrimination!or!the!oppression!of!inequality.!It!is!not!intended!to!prohibit!legislation!which!is!limited!either!in!the!
object!to!which!it!is!directed!or!by!territory!within!which!it!is!to!operate.!It!does!not!demand!absolute!equality!among!
residents;!it!merely!requires!that!all!persons!shall!be!treated!alike,!under!like!circumstances!and!conditions!both!as!to!
privileges!conferred!and!liabilities!enforced.!The!equal!protection!clause!is!not!infringed!by!legislation!which!applies!
only!to!those!persons!falling!within!a!specified!class,!if!it!applies!alike!to!all!persons!within!such!class,!and!reasonable!
grounds!exist!for!making!a!distinction!between!those!who!fall!within!such!class!and!those!who!do!not.!

!!
Substantial$ distinctions$ clearly$ exist$ between$ elective$ officials$ and$ appointive$ officials.!The! former! occupy! their!
office!by!virtue!of!the!mandate!of!the!electorate.!They!are!elected!to!an!office!for!a!definite!term!and!may!be!removed!
therefrom! only! upon! stringent! conditions.!On! the! other! hand,!appointive! officials! hold! their! office! by! virtue! of! their!
designation!thereto!by!an!appointing!authority.!Some!appointive!officials!hold!their!office!in!a!permanent!capacity!and!
are!entitled!to!security!of!tenure!while!others!serve!at!the!pleasure!of!the!appointing!authority.!
!!
x!x!x!x!
An! election! is! the! embodiment! of! the! popular! will,! perhaps! the! purest! expression! of! the! sovereign! power! of! the!
people.!It! involves! the! choice! or! selection! of! candidates! to! public! office! by! popular! vote.!Considering! that! elected!
officials!are!put!in!office!by!their!constituents!for!a!definite!term,!x!x!x!complete!deference!is!accorded!to!the!will!of!
the! electorate! that! they! be! served! by! such! officials! until! the! end! of! the! term! for! which! they! were! elected.!In!
contrast,!there! is! no! such! expectation! insofar! as! appointed! officials! are! concerned.! (emphasis! and! underscoring!
supplied)!
!!
!!
The!electorates!condonation!of!the!previous!administrative!infractions!of!the!reelected!official!cannot!be!extended!to!that!of!the!
reappointed!coterminous!employees,!the!underlying!basis!of!the!rule!being!to!uphold!the!will!of!the!people!expressed!through!the!
ballot.!In!other!words,!there!is!neither!subversion!of!the!sovereign!will!nor!disenfranchisement!of!the!electorate!to!speak!of,!in!the!
case!of!reappointed!coterminous!employees.!
!!
It! is! the! will! of! the! populace,! not! the! whim! of! one! person! who! happens! to! be! the! appointing! authority,! that! could! extinguish! an!
administrative! liability.!Since! petitioners! hold! appointive! positions,! they! cannot! claim! the! mandate! of! the! electorate.!The! people!
cannot!be!charged!with!the!presumption!of!full!knowledge!of!the!life!and!character!of!each!and!every!probable!appointee!of!the!
elective!official!ahead!of!the!latters!actual!reelection.!
!!
Moreover,!the!unwarranted!expansion!of!the!Pascual!doctrine!would!set!a!dangerous!precedent!as!it!would,!as!respondents!posit,!
provide! civil! servants,! particularly! local! government! employees,! with! blanket! immunity! from! administrative! liability! that! would!
spawn!and!breed!abuse!in!the!bureaucracy.!
!!

Asserting!want!of!conspiracy,!petitioners!implore!this!Court!to!sift!through!the!evidence!and!reDassess!the!factual!findings.!This!the!
Court!cannot!do,!for!being!improper!and!immaterial.!
!!
Under!Rule!45!of!the!Rules!of!Court,!only!questions!of!law!may!be!raised,!since!the!Court!is!not!a!trier!of!facts.[34]!As!a!rule,!the!
Court!is!not!to!review!evidence!on!record!and!assess!the!probative!weight!thereof.!In!the!present!case,!the!appellate!court!affirmed!
the!factual!findings!of!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman,!which!rendered!the!factual!questions!beyond!the!province!of!the!Court.!
!!
Moreover,! as! correctly! observed! by! respondents,! the! lack! of! conspiracy! cannot! be! appreciated! in! favor! of! petitioners! who! were!
found!guilty!of!simple!neglect!of!duty,!for!if!they!conspired!to!act!negligently,!their!infraction!becomes!intentional.[35]!There!can!
hardly!be!conspiracy!to!commit!negligence.[36]!
Simple!neglect!of!duty!is!defined!as!the!failure!to!give!proper!attention!to!a!task!expected!from!an!employee!resulting!from!either!
carelessness!or!indifference.[37]!In!the!present!case,!petitioners!fell!short!of!the!reasonable!diligence!required!of!them,!for!failing!to!
exercise!due!care!and!prudence!in!ascertaining!the!legal!requirements!and!fiscal!soundness!of!the!projects!before!stamping!their!
imprimatur!and!giving!their!advice!to!their!superior.!
!!
The! appellate! court! correctly! ruled! that! as! municipal! legal! officer,! petitioner! Salumbides! failed! to! uphold! the! law! and! provide! a!
sound!legal!assistance!and!support!to!the!mayor!in!carrying!out!the!delivery!of!basic!services!and!provisions!of!adequate!facilities!
when! he! advised! [the! mayor]! to! proceed! with! the! construction! of! the! subject! projects! without! prior! competitive! bidding.[38]!As!
pointed! out! by! the! Office! of! the! Solicitor! General,! to! absolve! Salumbides! is! tantamount! to! allowing! with! impunity! the! giving! of!
erroneous! or! illegal! advice,! when! by! law! he! is! precisely! tasked! to! advise! the! mayor! on! matters! related! to! upholding! the! rule! of!
law.[39]!Indeed,!a!legal!officer!who!renders!a!legal!opinion!on!a!course!of!action!without!any!legal!basis!becomes!no!different!from!a!
lay!person!who!may!approve!the!same!because!it!appears!justified.!
!!
As!regards!petitioner!Glenda,!the!appellate!court!held!that!the!improper!use!of!government!funds!upon!the!direction!of!the!mayor!
and! prior! advice! by! the! municipal! legal! officer! did! not! relieve! her! of! liability! for! willingly! cooperating! rather! than! registering! her!
written!objection[40]!as!municipal!budget!officer.!
!!
Aside!from!the!lack!of!competitive!bidding,!the!appellate!court,!pointing!to!the!improper!itemization!of!the!expense,!held!that!the!
funding!for!the!projects!should!have!been!taken!from!the!capital!outlays!that!refer!to!the!appropriations!for!the!purchase!of!goods!
and!services,!the!benefits!of!which!extend!beyond!the!fiscal!year!and!which!add!to!the!assets!of!the!local!government!unit.!It!added!

that!current!operating!expenditures!like!MOOE/RMF!refer!to!appropriations!for!the!purchase!of!goods!and!services!for!the!conduct!
of!normal!local!government!operations!within!the!fiscal!year.[41]!
!!
In!Office,of,the,Ombudsman,v.,Tongson,[42]!the!Court!reminded!the!therein!respondents,!who!were!guilty!of!simple!neglect!of!duty,!
that!government!funds!must!be!disbursed!only!upon!compliance!with!the!requirements!provided!by!law!and!pertinent!rules.!
!!
Simple!neglect!of!duty!is!classified!as!a!less!grave!offense!punishable!by!suspension!without!pay!for!one!month!and!one!day!to!six!
months.!Finding!no!alleged!or!established!circumstance!to!warrant!the!imposition!of!the!maximum!penalty!of!six!months,!the!Court!
finds!the!imposition!of!suspension!without!pay!for!three!months!justified.!
!!
When!a!public!officer!takes!an!oath!of!office,!he!or!she!binds!himself!or!herself!to!faithfully!perform!the!duties!of!the!office!and!use!
reasonable!skill!and!diligence,!and!to!act!primarily!for!the!benefit!of!the!public.!Thus,!in!the!discharge!of!duties,!a!public!officer!is!to!
use!that!prudence,!caution,!and!attention!which!careful!persons!use!in!the!management!of!their!affairs.[43]!
!!
Public,service,requires,integrity,and,discipline.!For!this!reason,!public!servants!must!exhibit!at!all!times!the!highest!sense!of!honesty!
and!dedication!to!duty.!By!the!very!nature!of!their!duties!and!responsibilities,!public!officers!and!employees!must!faithfully!adhere!
to! hold! sacred! and! render! inviolate! the! constitutional! principle! that! a! public! office! is! a! public! trust;!and! must! at! all! times! be!
accountable!to!the!people,!serve!them!with!utmost!responsibility,!integrity,!loyalty!and!efficiency.[44]!
!!
WHEREFORE,$the! assailed! Decision! and! Resolution! of! the! Court! of! Appeals! in! CADG.R.! SP! No.! 96889!
are!AFFIRMED$with$MODIFICATION,! in! that! petitioners,! Vicente! Salumbides,! Jr.! and! Glenda! Araa,! are! suspended! from! office! for!
three!(3)!months!without!pay.!
!!
SO$ORDERED.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
G$.R.$No.$86564$August$1,$1989$

RAMON$
L.$
LABO,$
vs.!
THE$COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS$(COMELEC)$EN$BANC$AND$LUIS$L.$LARDIZABAL,$respondents!

JR.,$petitioner,!!

CRUZ,$J.:$
The! petitioner! asks! this! Court! to! restrain! the! Commission! on! Elections! from! looking! into! the! question! of! his! citizenship! as! a!
qualification!for!his!office!as!Mayor!of!Baguio!City.!The!allegation!that!he!is!a!foreigner,!he!says,!is!not!the!issue.!The!issue!is!whether!
or! not! the! public! respondent! has! jurisdiction! to! conduct! any! inquiry! into! this! matter,! considering! that! the! petition! for!quo,
warranto,against!him!was!not!filed!on!time.!
It!is!noteworthy!that!this!argument!is!based!on!the!alleged!tardiness!not!of!the!petition!itself!but!of!the!payment!of!the!filing!fee,!
which!the!petitioner!contends!was!an!indispensable!requirement.!The!fee!is,!curiously!enough,!all!of!P300.00!only.!This!brings!to!
mind!the!popular!verse!that!for!want!of!a!horse!the!kingdom!was!lost.!Still,!if!it!is!shown!that!the!petition!was!indeed!filed!beyond!
the!reglementary!period,!there!is!no!question!that!this!petition!must!be!granted!and!the!challenge!abated.!
The! petitioner's! position! is! simple.! He! was! proclaimed! mayorDelect! of! Baguio! City,! on! January! 20,! 1988.! The! petition! for!quo,
warranto,was!filed!by!the!private!respondent!on!January!26,!1988,!but!no!filing!fee!was!paid!on!that!date.!This!fee!was!finally!paid!
on!February!10,!1988,!or!twentyDone!days!after!his!proclamation.!As!the!petition!by!itself!alone!was!ineffectual!without!the!filing!fee,!
it!should!be!deemed!filed!only!when!the!fee!was!paid.!This!was!done!beyond!the!reglementary!period!provided!for!under!Section!
253!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!reading!as!follows:!
SEC.! 253.! Petition! for!quo, warranto., !Any! voter! contesting! the! election! of! a! Member! of! the! Batasang! Pambansa,!
regional,!provincial,!or!city!officer!on!the!ground!of!ineligibility!or!of!disloyalty!to!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines!shall!file!a!
sworn!petition!for!quo,warranto,with!the!Commission!within!ten!days!after!the!proclamation!of!the!result!of!the!election.!
The!petitioner!adds!that!the!payment!of!the!filing!fee!is!required!under!Rule!36,!Section!5,!of!the!Procedural!Rules!of!the!COMELEC!
providing!that!!
Sec.!5.!No!petition!for!quo,warranto,shall!be!given!due!course!without!the!payment!of!a!filing!fee!in!the!amount!of!
Three!Hundred!Pesos!(P300.00)!and!the!legal!research!fee!as!required!by!law.!

and!stresses!that!there!is!abundant!jurisprudence!holding!that!the!payment!of!the!filing!fee!is!essential!to!the!timeliness!of!the!filling!
of!the!petition!itself.!He!cites!many!rulings!of!the!Court!to!this!effect,!specificallyManchester,v.,Court,of,Appeals.!1!
For!his!part,!the!private!respondent!denies!that!the!filing!fee!was!paid!out!of!time.!In!fact!he!says,!it!was!fliedahead,of!time.!His!point!
is!that!when!he!filed!his!"Petition!for!Quo!Warranto!with!Prayer!for!Immediate!Annulment!of!Proclamation!and!Restraining!Order!or!
Injunction"!on!January!26,!1988,!the!COMELEC!treated!it!as!a!preDproclamation!controversy!and!docketed!it!as!SPC!Case!No.!88D288.!
No!docket!fee!was!collected!although!it!was!offered.!It!was!only!on!February!8,!1988,!that!the!COMELEC!decided!to!treat!his!petition!
as!solely!for!quo,warranto,and!reDdocketed!it!as!EPC!Case!No.!88D19,!serving!him!notice!on!February!10,!1988.!He!immediately!paid!
the!filing!fee!on!that!date.!
The! private! respondent! argues! further! that! during! the! period! when! the! COMELEC! regarded! his! petition! as! a! preDproclamation!
controversy,! the! time! for! filing! an! election! protest! or!quo, warranto,proceeding! was! deemed! suspended! under! Section! 248! of! the!
Omnibus! Election! Code.!2!At! any! rate,! he! says,! Rule! 36,! Section! 5,! of! the! COMELEC! Rules! of! Procedure! cited! by! the! petitioner,!
became! effective! only! on! November! 15,! 1988,! seven! days! after! publication! of! the! said! Rules! in! the! Official! Gazette! pursuant! to!
Section!4,!Rule!44!thereof.!3!These!rules!could!not!retroact!to!January!26,1988,!when!he!filed!his!petition!with!the!COMELEC.!
In! his! Reply,! the! petitioner! argues! that! even! if! the! Omnibus! Election! Code! did! not! require! it,! the! payment! of! filing! fees! was! still!
necessary!under!Res.!No.!1996!and,!before!that,!Res.!No.!1450!of!the!respondent!COMELEC,!promulgated!on!January!12,!1988,!and!
February! 26,! 1980,! respectively.! To! this,! the! private! respondent! counters! that! the! latter! resolution! was! intended! for! the! local!
elections!held!on!January!30,!1980,!and!did!not!apply!to!the!1988!local!elections,!which!were!supposed!to!be!governed!by!the!firstD
mentioned! resolution.! However,! Res.! No.! 1996! took! effect! only! on! March! 3,! 1988,! following! the! lapse! of! seven! days! after! its!
publication!as!required!by!RA!No.!6646,!otherwise!known!as!the!Electoral!Reform!Law!of!1987,!which!became!effective!on!January!5,!
1988.!Its!Section!30!provides!in!part:!
Sec.! 30.! Effectivity, of, Regulations, and, Orders, of, the, Commission.! ! The! rules! and! regulations! promulgated! by! the!
Commission!shall!take!effect!on!the!seventh!day!after!their!publication!in!the!Official!Gazette!or!in!at!least!(2)!daily!
newspapers!of!general!circulation!in!the!Philippines.!
The!Court!has!considered!the!arguments!of!the!parties!and!holds!that!the!petition!for!quo,warranto,was!filed!on!time.!We!agree!
with! the! respondents! that! the! fee! was! paid! during! the! tenDday! period! as! extended! by! the! pendency! of! the! petition! when! it! was!
treated!by!the!COMELEC!as!a!preDproclamation!proceeding!which!did!not!require!the!payment!of!a!filing!fee.!At!that,!we!reach!this!
conclusion! only! on! the! assumption! that! the! requirement! for! the! payment! of! the! fees! in!quo, warranto,proceedings! was! already!

effective.!There!is!no!record!that!Res.!No.!1450!was!even!published;!and!as!for!Res.!No.!1996,!this!took!effect!only!on!March!3,!1988,!
seven!days!after!its!publication!in!the!February!25,!1988!issues!of!the!Manila!Chronicle!and!the!Philippine!Daily!Inquirer,!or!after,the!
petition!was!filed.!
The! petitioner! forgets!Ta;ada, v., Tuvera!4!when! he! argues! that! the! resolutions! became! effective! "immediately! upon! approval"!
simply!because!it!was!so!provided!therein.!We!held!in!that!case!that!publication!was!still!necessary!under!the!due!process!clause!
despite!such!effectivity!clause.!
In! any! event,! what! is! important! is! that! the! filing! fee! was! paid,! and! whatever! delay! there! may! have! been! is! not! imputable! to! the!
private!respondent's!fault!or!neglect.!It!is!true!that!in!the!Manchester,Case,!we!required!the!timely!payment!of!the!filing!fee!as!a!
precondition!for!the!timeliness!of!the!filing!of!the!case!itself.!In!Sun,Insurance,Office,,Ltd.,v.,Asuncion,!5!however!this!Court,!taking!
into!account!the!special!circumstances!of!that!case,!declared:!
This!Court!reiterates!the!rule!that!the!trial!court!acquires!jurisdiction!over!a!case!only!upon!the!payment!of!the!prescribed!
filing! fee.! However,! the! court! may! allow! the! payment! of! the! said! fee! within! a! reasonable! time.! In! the! event! of! nonD
compliance!therewith,!the!case!shall!be!dismissed.!
The!same!idea!is!expressed!in!Rule!42,!Section!18,!of!the!COMELEC!Rules!of!Procedure!adopted!on!June!20,!1988,!thus:!
Sec.!18.!NonPpayment,of,prescribed,fees.!!If!the!fees!above!prescribed!are!not!paid,!theCommission,may,refuse,to,
take,action,thereon,until,they,are,paid,and,may,dismiss,the,action,or,the,proceeding.!(Emphasis!supplied.)!
The!Court!notes!that!while!arguing!the!technical!point!that!the!petition!for!quo,warranto,should!be!dismissed!for!failure!to!pay!the!
filing! fee! on! time,! the! petitioner! would! at! the! same! time! minimize! his! alleged! lack! of! citizenship! as! "a! futile! technicality,"! It! is!
regrettable,! to! say! the! least,! that! the! requirement! of! citizenship! as! a! qualification! for! public! office! can! be! so! demeaned.! What! is!
worse!is!that!it!is!regarded!as!an!even!less!important!consideration!than!the!reglementary!period!the!petitioner!insists!upon.!
This! matter! should! normally! end! here! as! the! sole! issue! originally! raised! by! the! petitioner! is! the! timeliness! of! thequo,
warranto,proceedings!against!him.!However,!as!his!citizenship!is!the!subject!of!that!proceeding,!and!considering!the!necessity!for!an!
early!resolution!of!that!more!important!question!clearly!and!urgently!affecting!the!public!interest,!we!shall!directly!address!it!now!in!
this!same!action.!

The!Court!has!similarly!acted!in!a!notable!number!of!cases,!thus:!
From!the!foregoing!brief!statement!of!the!nature!of!the!instant!case,!it!would!appear!that!our!sole!function!in!this!
proceeding! should! be! to! resolve! the! single! issue! of! whether! or! not! the! Court! of! Appeals! erred! in! ruling! that! the!
motion! for! new! trial! of! the! GSIS! in! question! should! indeed! be! deemedpro, forma.!But! going! over! the! extended!
pleadings!of!both!parties,!the!Court!is!immediately!impressed!that!substantial!justice!may!not!be!timely!achieved,!if!
we! should! decide! this! case! upon! such! a! technical! ground! alone.! We! have! carefully! read! all! the! allegations! and!
arguments! of! the! parties,! very! ably! and! comprehensively! expounded! by! evidently! knowledgeable! and! unusually!
competent!counsel,!and!we!feel!we!can!better!serve!the!interests!of!justice!by!broadening!the!scope!of!our!inquiry,!
for!as!the!record!before!us!stands,!we!see!that!there!is!enough!basis!for!us!to!end!the!basic!controversy!between!the!
parties!here!and!now,!dispensing,!however,!with!procedural!steps!which!would!not!anyway!affect!substantially!the!
merits!of!their!respective!claims.!6!
x!x!x!
While!it!is!the!fault!of!the!petitioner!for!appealing!to!the!wrong!court!and!thereby!allowing!the!period!for!appeal!to!
lapse,!the!more!correct!procedure!was!for!the!respondent!court!to!forward!the!case!to!the!proper!court!which!was!
the!Court!of!Appeals!for!appropriate!action.!Considering,!however,!the!length!of!time!that!this!case!has!been!pending,!
we!apply!the!rule!in!the!case!of!Del!Castillo!v.!Jaymalin,!(112!SCRA!629)!and!follow!the!principle!enunciated!in!Alger!
Electric,!Inc.!v.!Court!of!Appeals,!(135!SCRA!37)!which!states:!
...!it!is!a!cherished!rule!of!procedure!for!this!Court!to!always!strive!to!settle!the!entire!controversy!in!a!
single!proceeding!leaving!no!root!or!branch!to!bear!the!seeds!of!future!litigation.!No!useful!purpose!
will!be!served!if!this!case!is!remanded!to!the!trial!court!only!to!have!its!decision!raised!again!to!the!
Intermediate!Appellate!Court!and!from!there!to!this!Court.!(p.!43)!
Only!recently!in!the!case!of!Beautifont,,Inc.,,et,al.,v.,Court,of,Appeals,,et,al.,(G.R.!No.!50141,!January!29,!1988),!we!
stated!that:!
...! But! all! those! relevant! facts! are! now! before! this! Court.! And! those! facts! dictate! the! rendition! of! a! verdict! in! the!
petitioner's!favor.!There!is!therefore!no!point!in!referring!the!case!back!to!the!Court!of!Appeals.!The!facts!and!the!
legal!propositions!involved!will!not!change,!nor!should!the!ultimate!judgment.!Considerable!time!has!already!elapsed!

and,!to!serve!the!ends!of!justice,!it!is!time!that!the!controversy!is!finally!laid!to!rest.!(See!Sotto!v.!Samson,!5!SCRA!733;!
Republic!v.!Paredes,!108!Phil.!57;!Lianga!Lumber!Co.!v.!Lianga!Timber!Co.,!Inc.,!76!SCRA!197;!Erico!v.!Heirs!of!Chigas,!
98! SCRA! 575;! Francisco! v.! City! of! Davao,! 12! SCRA! 628;! Valencia! v.! Mabilangan,! 105! Phil.! 162).lwph1.t,Sound!
practice!seeks!to!accommodate!the!theory!which!avoids!waste!of!time,!effort!and!expense,!both!to!the!parties!and!
the!government,!not!to!speak!of!delay!in!the!disposal!of!the!case!(cf.!Fernandez!v.!Garcia,!92!Phil.!592,!597).!A!marked!
characteristic!of!our!judicial!setDup!is!that!where!the!dictates!of!justice!so!demand!...!the!Supreme!Court!should!act,!
and!act!with!finality.',(Li!Siu!Liat!v.!Republic,!21!SCRA!1039,!1046,!citing!Samal!v.!CA,!99!Phil.!230!and!U.S.!v.!Gimenez,!
34!Phil.!74).!In!this!case,!the!dictates!of!justice!do!demand!that!this!Court!act,!and!act!with!finality.!7!
x!x!x!
Remand! of! the! case! to! the! lower! court! for! further! reception! of! evidence! is! not! necessary! where! the! court! is! in! a!
position!to!resolve!the!dispute!based!on!the!records!before!it.!On!many!occasions,!the!Court,!in!the!public!interest!
and!the!expeditious!administration!of!justice,!has!resolved!actions!on!the!merits!instead!of!remanding!them!to!the!
trial!court!for!further!proceedings,!such!as!where!the!ends!of!justice!would!not!be!subserved!by!the!remand!of!the!
case!or!when!public!interest!demands!an!early!disposition!of!the!case!or!where!the!trial!court!had!already!received!all!
the!evidence!of!the!parties.!8!
This!course!of!action!becomes!all!the!more!justified!in!the!present!case!where,!to!repeat!for!stress,!it!is!claimed!that!a!foreigner!is!
holding!a!public!office.!
We!also!note!in!his!Reply,!the!petitioner!says:!
In! adopting! private! respondent's! comment,! respondent! COMELEC! implicitly! adopted! as! "its! own"! private!
respondent's! repeated! assertion! that! petitioner! is! no! longer! a! Filipino! citizen.! In! so! doing,! has! not! respondent!
COMELEC!effectively!disqualified!itself,!by!reason!of!prejudgment,!from!resolving!the!petition!for!quo!warranto!filed!
by!private!respondent!still!pending!before!it?!9!
This!is!still!another!reason!why!the!Court!has!seen!fit!to!rule!directly!on!the!merits!of!this!case.!
Going!over!the!record,!we!find!that!there!are!two!administrative!decisions!on!the!question!of!the!petitioner's!citizenship.!The!first!
was!rendered!by!the!Commission!on!Elections!on!May!12,!1982,!and!found!the!petitioner!to!be!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!10$The!

second!was!rendered!by!the!Commission!on!Immigration!and!Deportation!on!September!13,!1988,!and!held!that!the!petitioner!was!
not!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!11!
The!first!decision!was!penned!by!then!COMELEC!Chigas,!Vicente!Santiago,!Jr.,!with!Commissioners!Pabalate!Savellano!and!Opinion!
concurring! in! full! and! Commissioner! Bacungan! concurring! in! the! dismissal! of! the! petition! "without! prejudice! to! the! issue! of! the!
respondent's!citizenship!being!raised!anew!in!a!proper!case."!Commissioner!Sagadraca!reserved!his!vote,!while!Commissioner!Felipe!
was! for! deferring! decision! until! representations! shall! have! been! made! with! the! Australian! Embassy! for! official! verification! of! the!
petitioner's!alleged!naturalization!as!an!Australian.!
The!second!decision!was!unanimously!rendered!by!Chairman!Miriam!DefensorDSantiago!and!Commissioners!Alano!and!Geraldez!of!
the!Commission!on!Immigration!and!Deportation.!It!is!important!to!observe!that!in!the!proceeding!before!the!COMELEC,!there!was!
no! direct! proof! that! the! herein! petitioner! had! been! formally! naturalized! as! a! citizen! of! Australia.! This! conjecture,! which! was!
eventually!rejected,!was!merely!inferred!from!the!fact!that!he!had!married!an!Australian!citizen,!obtained!an!Australian!passport,!
and!registered!as!an!alien!with!the!CID!upon!his!return!to!this!country!in!1980.!
On!the!other!hand,!the!decision!of!the!CID!took!into!account!the!official!statement!of!the!Australian!Government!dated!August!12,!
1984,! through! its! Consul! in! the! Philippines,! that! the! petitioner! was! still! an! Australian! citizen! as! of! that! date! by! reason! of! his!
naturalization!in!1976.!That!statement!12$is!reproduced!in!full!as!follows:!
I,!GRAHAM!COLIN!WEST,!Consul!of!Australia!in!the!Philippines,!by!virtue!of!a!certificate!of!appointment!signed!and!sealed!by!the!
Australian!Minister!of!State!for!Foreign!Affairs!on!19!October!1983,!and!recognized!as!such!by!Letter!of!Patent!signed!and!sealed!by!
the!Philippines!Acting!Minister!of!Foreign!Affairs!on!23!November!1983,!do!hereby!provide!the!following!statement!in!response!to!
the!subpoena!Testificandum!dated!9!April!1984!in!regard!to!the!Petition!for!disqualification!against!RAMON!LABO,!JR.!Y!LOZANO!
(SPC!No.!84D73),!and!do!hereby!certify!that!the!statement!is!true!and!correct.!
STATEMENT!
A)! RAMON! LABO,! JR.! Y! LOZANO,! date! of! birth! 23! December! 1934,! was! married! in! the! Philippines! to! an! Australian!
citizen.! As! the! spouse! of! an! Australian! citizen,! he! was! not! required! to! meet! normal! requirements! for! the! grant! of!
citizenship!and!was!granted!Australian!citizenship,by,Sydney,on!28!July!1976.!

B)!Any!person!over!the!age!of!16!years!who!is!granted!Australian!citizenship!must,take,an,oath,of,allegiance,or,make,
an,affirmation,of,allegiance.!The!wording!of!the!oath!of!affirmation!is:!"I!...,!renouncing!all!other!allegiance!..."!etc.!
This!need!not!necessarily!have!any!effect!on!his!former!nationality!as!this!would!depend!on!the!citizenship!laws!of!his!
former!country.!
C)!The!marriage!was!declared!void!in!the!Australian!Federal!Court!in!Sydney!on!27!June!1980!on!the!ground!that!the!
marriage!had!been!bigamous.!
D)!According,to,our,records,LABO,is,still,an,Australian,citizen.!
E)! Should! he! return! to! Australia,! LABO! may! face! court! action! in! respect! of! Section! 50! of! Australian! Citizenship! Act!
1948!which!relates!to!the!giving!of!false!or!misleading!information!of!a!material!nature!in!respect!of!an!application!for!
Australian! citizenship.! If! such! a! prosecution! was! successful,! he! could! be! deprived! of! Australian! citizenship! under!
Section!21!of!the!Act.!
F)!There!are!two!further!ways!in!which!LABO!could!divest!himself!of!Australian!citizenship:!
(i)!He!could!make!a!declaration!of!Renunciation!of!Australian!citizenship!under!Section!18!of!the!Australian!Citizenship!
Act,!or!
(ii)!If!he!acquired!another!nationality,!(for!example,!Filipino)!by!a!formal!and!voluntary!act!other!than!marriage,!then!
he!would!automatically!lose!as!Australian!citizenship!under!Section!17!of!the!Act.!
IN!WITNESS!WHEREOF,!I!HAVE!HEREUNTO!SET!MAY!HAND!AND!SEAL!OF!THE!AUSTRALIAN!EMBASSY,!MANILA,!THIS!
12th!DAY!OF!APRIL!1984.!DONE!AT!MANILA!IN!THE!PHILIPPINES.!
(Signed)!GRAHAM!C.!WEST!Consul!
This!was!affirmed!later!by!the!letter!of!February!1,!1988,!addressed!to!the!private!respondent!by!the!Department!of!
Foreign!Affairs!reading!as!follows:!13!
Sir:!

With! reference! to! your! letter! dated! 1! February! 1988,! I! wish! to! inform! you! that! inquiry! made! with! the! Australian!
Government!through!the!Embassy!of!the!Philippines!in!Canberra!has!elicited!the!following!information:!
1)!That!Mr.!Ramon!L.!Labo,!Jr.!acquired!Australian!citizenship!on!28!July!1976.!
2)!That,prior,to,17,July,1986,,a,candidate,for,Australian,citizenship,had,to,either,swear,an,oath,of,allegiance,or,make,
an,affirmation,of,allegiance,which,carries,a,renunciation,of,"all,other,allegiance.!
Very!truly!yours,!For!the!Secretary!of!Foreign!Affairs:!(SGD)!RODOLFO!SEVERINO,!JR.!Assistant!Secretary!
The!decision!also!noted!the!oath!of!allegiance!taken!by!every!naturalized!Australian!reading!as!follows:!
OATH!OF!ALLEGIANCE!
I,!A.B.,!renouncing,all,other,allegiance,!swear!by!Almighty!God!that!I!will!be!faithful!and!bear!true!allegiance!to!Her!
Majesty!Elizabeth!the!Second,!Queen!of!Australia,!Her!heirs!and!successors!according!to!law,!and!that!I!will!faithfully!
observe!the!laws!of!Australia!and!fulfill!my!duties!as!an!Australian!citizen.!14!
and!the!Affirmation!of!Allegiance,!which!declares:!
AFFIRMATION!OF!ALLEGIANCE!
I,!A.B.,,renouncing,all,other,allegiance,!solemnly!and!sincerely!promise!and!declare!that!I!will!be!faithful!and!bear!true!
allegiance!to!Her!Majesty!Elizabeth!the!Second,!Queen!of!Australia,!Her!heirs!and!successors!according!to!law,!and!
that!I!will!faithfully!observe!the!Laws!of!Australia!and!fulfill!my!duties!as!an!Australian!citizen.!15!
The!petitioner!does!not!question!the!authenticity!of!the!above!evidence.!Neither!does!he!deny!that!he!obtained!Australian!Passport!
No.!754705,!which!he!used!in!coming!back!to!the!Philippines!in!1980,!when!he!declared!before!the!immigration!authorities!that!he!
was! an! alien! and! registered! as! such! under! Alien! Certificate! of! Registration! No.! BD323985.!16!He! later! asked! for! the! change! of! his!
status! from! immigrant! to! a! returning! former! Philippine! citizen! and! was! granted! Immigrant! Certificate! of! Residence! No.!
223809.!17$He!also!categorically!declared!that!he!was!a!citizen!of!Australia!in!a!number!of!sworn!statements!voluntarily!made!by!
him!and.!even!sought!to!avoid!the!jurisdiction!of!the!barangay!court!on!the!ground!that!he!was!a!foreigner.!18!

The! decision! of! the! COMELEC! in! 1982! quaintly! dismisses! all! these! acts! as! "mistakes"! that! did! not! divest! the! petitioner! of! his!
citizenship,! although,! as! earlier! noted,! not! all! the! members! joined! in! this! finding.! We! reject! this! ruling! as! totally! baseless.! The!
petitioner!is!not!an!unlettered!person!who!was!not!aware!of!the!consequences!of!his!acts,!let!alone!the!fact!that!he!was!assisted!by!
counsel!when!he!performed!these!acts.!
The!private!respondent!questions!the!motives!of!the!COMELEC!at!that!time!and!stresses!Labo's!political!affiliation!with!the!party!in!
power!then,!but!we!need!not!go!into!that!now.!
There! is! also! the! claim! that! the! decision! can! no! longer! be! reversed! because! of! the! doctrine! of!res, judicata,! but! this! too! must! be!
dismissed.!This!doctrine!does!not!apply!to!questions!of!citizenship,!as!the!Court!has!ruled!in!several!cases.!19$Moreover,!it!does!not!
appear!that!it!was!properly!and!seasonably!pleaded,!in!a!motion!to!dismiss!or!in!the!answer,!having!been!invoked!only!when!the!
petitioner!filed!his!reply!20!to!the!private!respondent's!comment.!Besides,!one!of!the!requisites!of!res,judicata,!to!wit,!identity!of!
parties,!is!not!present!in!this!case.!
The! petitioner's! contention! that! his! marriage! to! an! Australian! national! in! 1976! did! not! automatically! divest! him! of! Philippine!
citizenship! is! irrelevant.! There! is! no! claim! or! finding! that! he! automatically! ceased! to! be! a! Filipino! because! of! that! marriage.! He!
became! a! citizen! of! Australia! because! he! was! naturalized! as! such! through! a! formal! and! positive! process,! simplified! in! his! case!
because! he! was! married! to! an! Australian! citizen.! As! a! condition! for! such! naturalization,! he! formally! took! the! Oath! of! Allegiance!
and/or!made!the!Affirmation!of!Allegiance,!both!quoted!above.!Renouncing!all!other!allegiance,!he!swore!"to!be!faithful!and!bear!
true!allegiance!to!Her!Majesty!Elizabeth!the!Second,!Queen!of!Australia!..."!and!to!fulfill!his!duties!"as!an!Australian!citizen."!
The!petitioner!now!claims!that!his!naturalization!in!Australia!made!him!at!worst!only!a!dual!national!and!did!not!divest!him!of!his!
Philippine! citizenship.! Such! a! specious! argument! cannot! stand! against! the! clear! provisions! of! CA! No.! 63,! which! enumerates! the!
modes!by!which!Philippine!citizenship!may!be!lost.!Among!these!are:!(1)!naturalization!in!a!foreign!country;!(2)!express!renunciation!
of!citizenship;!and!(3)!subscribing!to!an!oath!of!allegiance!to!support!the!Constitution!or!laws!of!a!foreign!country,!all!of!which!are!
applicable! to! the! petitioner.! It! is! also! worth! mentioning! in! this! connection! that! under! Article! IV,! Section! 5,! of! the! present!
Constitution,!"Dual!allegiance!of!citizens!is!inimical!to!the!national!interest!and!shall!be!dealt!with!by!law."!
Even!if!it!be!assumed!that,!as!the!petitioner!asserts,!his!naturalization!in!Australia!was!annulled!after!it!was!found!that!his!marriage!
to! the! Australian! citizen! was! bigamous,! that! circumstance! alone! did! not! automatically! restore! his! Philippine! citizenship.! His!
divestiture!of!Australian!citizenship!does!not!concern!us!here.!That!is!a!matter!between!him!and!his!adopted!country.!What!we!must!
consider!is!the!fact!that!he!voluntarily!and!freely!rejected!Philippine!citizenship!and!willingly!and!knowingly!embraced!the!citizenship!

of!a!foreign!country.!The!possibility!that!he!may!have!been!subsequently!rejected!by!Australia,!as!he!claims,!does!not!mean!that!he!
has!been!automatically!reinstated!as!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!
Under!CA!No.!63!as!amended!by!PD!No.!725,!Philippine!citizenship!may!be!reacquired!by!direct!act!of!Congress,!by!naturalization,!or!
by!repatriation.!It!does!not!appear!in!the!record,!nor!does!the!petitioner!claim,!that!he!has!reacquired!Philippine!citizenship!by!any!
of! these! methods.! He! does! not! point! to! any! judicial! decree! of! naturalization! as! to! any! statute! directly! conferring! Philippine!
citizenship!upon!him.!Neither!has!he!shown!that!he!has!complied!with!PD!No.!725,!providing!that:!
...! (2)! naturalDborn! Filipinos! who! have! lost! their! Philippine! citizenship! may! reacquire! Philippine! citizenship! through!
repatriation!by!applying!with!the!Special!Committee!on!Naturalization!created!by!Letter!of!Instruction!No.!270,!and,!if,
their,applications,are,approved,!taking!the!necessary!oath!of!allegiance!to!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines,!after!which!
they! shall! be! deemed! to! have! reacquired! Philippine! citizenship.! The! Commission! on! Immigration! and! Deportation!
shall!thereupon!cancel!their!certificate!of!registration.!(Emphasis!supplied.)!
That!is!why!the!Commission!on!Immigration!and!Deportation!rejected!his!application!for!the!cancellation!of!his!alien!certificate!of!
registration.!And!that!is!also!the!reason!we!must!deny!his!present!claim!for!recognition!as!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!
The!petitioner!is!not!now,!nor!was!he!on!the!day!of!the!local!elections!on!January!18,!1988,!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!In!fact,!he!
was!not!even!a!qualified!voter!under!the!Constitution!itself!because!of!his!alienage.!21!He!was!therefore!ineligible!as!a!candidate!for!
mayor!of!Baguio!City,!under!Section!42!of!the!Local!Government!Code!providing!in!material!part!as!follows:!
Sec.!42.!Qualifications.!!An!elective!local!official!must!be!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines,!at!least!twentyDthree!years!of!
age! on! election! day,! a! qualified! voter! registered! as! such! in! the! barangay,! municipality,! city! or! province! where! he!
proposes!to!be!elected,!a!resident!therein!for!at!least!one!year!at!the!time!of!the!filing!of!his!certificate!of!candidacy,!
and!able!to!read!and!write!English,!Filipino,!or!any!other!local!language!or!dialect.!
The!petitioner!argues!that!his!alleged!lack!of!citizenship!is!a!"futile!technicality"!that!should!not!frustrate!the!will!of!the!electorate!of!
Baguio!City,!who!elected!him!by!a!"resonant!and!thunderous!majority."!To!be!accurate,!it!was!not!as!loud!as!all!that,!for!his!lead!over!
the!secondDplacer!was!only!about!2,100!votes.!In!any!event,!the!people!of!that!locality!could!not!have,!even!unanimously,!changed!
the!requirements!of!the!Local!Government!Code!and!the!Constitution.!The!electorate!had!no!power!to!permit!a!foreigner!owing!his!
total!allegiance!to!the!Queen!of!Australia,!or!at!least!a!stateless!individual!owing!no!allegiance!to!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines,!to!
preside!over!them!as!mayor!of!their!city.!Only!citizens!of!the!Philippines!have!that!privilege!over!their!countrymen.!

The! probability! that! many! of! those! who! voted! for! the! petitioner! may! have! done! so! in! the! belief! that! he! was! qualified! only!
strengthens! the! conclusion! that! the! results! of! the! election! cannot! nullify! the! qualifications! for! the! office! now! held! by! him.! These!
qualifications!are!continuing!requirements;!once!any!of!them!is!lost!during!incumbency,!title!to!the!office!itself!is!deemed!forfeited.!
In!the!case!at!bar,!the!citizenship!and!voting!requirements!were!not!subsequently!lost!but!were!not!possessed!at!all!in!the!first!place!
on! the! day! of! the! election.! The! petitioner! was! disqualified! from! running! as! mayor! and,! although! elected,! is! not! now! qualified! to!
serve!as!such.!
Finally,! there! is! the! question! of! whether! or! not! the! private! respondent,! who! filed! the!quo, warranto,petition,! can! replace! the!
petitioner!as!mayor.!He!cannot.!The!simple!reason!is!that!as!he!obtained!only!the!second!highest!number!of!votes!in!the!election,!he!
was!obviously!not!the!choice!of!the!people!of!Baguio!city.!
The!latest!ruling!of!the!Court!on!this!issue!is!Santos,v.,Commission,on,Elections,22!decided!in!1985.!In!that!case,!the!candidate!who!
placed!second!was!proclaimed!elected!after!the!votes!for!his!winning!rival,!who!was!disqualified!as!a!turncoat!and!considered!a!nonD
candidate,!were!all!disregarded!as!stray.!In!effect,!the!second!placer!won!by!default.!That!decision!was!supported!by!eight!members!
of!the!Court!then!23$with!three!dissenting!24!and!another!two!reserving!their!vote.25!One!was!on!official!leave.!26!
ReDexamining! that! decision,! the! Court! finds,! and! so! holds,! that! it! should! be! reversed! in! favor! of! the! earlier! case! ofGeronimo, v.,
Ramos,,27$Which!represents!the!more!logical!and!democratic!rule.!That!case,!which!reiterated!the!doctrine!first!announced!in!1912!
in!Topacio, vs., Paredes!28!was! supported! by! ten! members! of! the! Court!29$without! any! dissent,! although! one! reserved! his!
vote,!30!another!took!no!part!31$and!two!others!were!on!leave.!32!There!the!Court!held:!
...! it! would! be! extremely! repugnant! to! the! basic! concept! of! the! constitutionally! guaranteed! right! to! suffrage! if! a!
candidate! who! has! not! acquired! the! majority! or! plurality! of! votes! is! proclaimed! a! winner! and! imposed! as! the!
representative!of!a!constituency,!the!majority!of!which!have!positively!declared!through!their!ballots!that!they!do!not!
choose!him.!
Sound!policy!dictates!that!public!elective!offices!are!filled!by!those!who!have!received!the!highest!number!of!votes!
cast!in!the!election!for!that!office,!and!it!is!a!fundamental!Idea!in!all!republican!forms!of!government!that!no!one!can!
be!declared!elected!and!no!measure!can!be!declared!carried!unless!he!or!it!receives!a!majority!or!plurality!of!the!legal!
votes!cast!in!the!election.!(20!Corpus!Juris!2nd,!S!243,!p.!676.)!

The! fact! that! the! candidate! who! obtained! the! highest! number! of! votes! is! later! declared! to! be! disqualified! or! not!
eligible! for! the! office! to! which! he! was! elected! does! not! necessarily! entitle! the! candidate! who! obtained! the! second!
highest!number!of!votes!to!be!declared!the!winner!of!the!elective!office.!The!votes!cast!for!a!dead,!disqualified,!or!
nonDeligible!person!may!not!be!valid!to!vote!the!winner!into!office!or!maintain!him!there.!However,!in!the!absence!of!
a!statute!which!clearly!asserts!a!contrary!political!and!legislative!policy!on!the!matter,!if!the!votes!were!cast!in!the!
sincere! belief! that! the! candidate! was! alive,! qualified,! or! eligible,! they! should! not! be! treated! as! stray,! void! or!
meaningless.!
It!remains!to!stress!that!the!citizen!of!the!Philippines!must!take!pride!in!his!status!as!such!and!cherish!this!priceless!gift!that,!out!of!
more! than! a! hundred! other! nationalities,! God! has! seen! fit! to! grant! him.! Having! been! so! endowed,! he! must! not! lightly! yield! this!
precious!advantage,!rejecting!it!for!another!land!that!may!offer!him!material!and!other!attractions!that!he!may!not!find!in!his!own!
country.! To! be! sure,! he! has! the! right! to! renounce! the! Philippines! if! he! sees! fit! and! transfer! his! allegiance! to! a! state! with! more!
allurements!for!him.!33$But!having!done!so,!he!cannot!expect!to!be!welcomed!back!with!open!arms!once!his!taste!for!his!adopted!
country!turns!sour!or!he!is!himself!disowned!by!it!as!an!undesirable!alien.!
Philippine!citizenship!is!not!a!cheap!commodity!that!can!be!easily!recovered!after!its!renunciation.!It!may!be!restored!only!after!the!
returning!renegade!makes!a!formal!act!of!reDdedication!to!the!country!he!has!abjured!and!he!solemnly!affirms!once!again!his!total!
and!exclusive!loyalty!to!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines.!This!may!not!be!accomplished!by!election!to!public!office.!
WHEREFORE,! petitioner! Ramon! J.! Labo,! Jr.! is! hereby! declared! NOT! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines! and! therefore! DISQUALIFIED! from!
continuing!to!serve!as!Mayor!of!Baguio!City.!He!is!ordered!to!VACATE!his!office!and!surrender!the!same!to!the!ViceDMayor!of!Baguio!
City,!once!this!decision!becomes!final!and!executory.!The!temporary!restraining!order!dated!January!31,!1989,!is!LIFTED.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
G.R.$No.$120295$June$28,$1996$
JUAN$
G.$
vs.!
COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS,$and$RAUL$R.$LEE,$respondents.!

FRIVALDO,$petitioner,!!

G.R.$No.$123755$June$28,$1996$
RAUL$
R.$
vs.!
COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS$and$JUAN$G.$FRIVALDO,$respondents.!

LEE,$petitioner,!!

PANGANIBAN,$J.:p!
The!ultimate!question!posed!before!this!Court!in!these!twin!cases!is:!Who!should!be!declared!the!rightful!governor!of!Sorsogon!D!
(i)! Juan! G.! Frivaldo,! who! unquestionably! obtained! the! highest! number! of! votes! in! three! successive! elections! but! who! was! twice!
declared!by!this!Court!to!be!disqualified!to!hold!such!office!due!to!his!alien!citizenship,!and!who!now!claims!to!have!reDassumed!his!
lost!Philippine!citizenship!thru!repatriation;!
(ii)! Raul! R.! Lee,! who! was! the! second! placer! in! the! canvass,! but! who! claims! that! the! votes! cast! in! favor! of! Frivaldo! should! be!
considered!void;!that!the!electorate!should!be!deemed!to!have!intentionally!thrown!away!their!ballots;!and!that!legally,!he!secured!
the!most!number!of!valid!votes;!or!
(iii)! The! incumbent! ViceDGovernor,! Oscar! G.! Deri,! who! obviously! was! not! voted! directly! to! the! position! of! governor,! but! who!
according! to! prevailing! jurisprudence! should! take! over! the! said! post! inasmuch! as,! by! the! ineligibility! of! Frivaldo,! a! "permanent!
vacancy!in!the!contested!office!has!occurred"?!

In! ruling! for! Frivaldo,! the! Court! lays! down! new! doctrines! on! repatriation,! clarifies/reiterates/amplifies! existing! jurisprudence! on!
citizenship!and!elections,!and!upholds!the!superiority!of!substantial!justice!over!pure!legalisms.!
G.R.!No.!123755!
This!is!a!special!civil!action!under!Rules!65!and!58!of!the!Rules!of!Court!for!certiorari!and!preliminary!injunction!to!review!and!annul!a!
Resolution! of! the! respondent! Commission! on! Elections! (Comelec),! First! Division,$1$promulgated! on! December! 19,! 1995$2$and!
another!Resolution!of!the!Comelec!en,banc!promulgated!February!23,!1996$3$denying!petitioner's!motion!for!reconsideration.!
The,Facts,
On!March!20,!1995,!private!respondent!Juan!G.!Frivaldo!filed!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!for!the!office!of!Governor!of!Sorsogon!in!
the! May! 8,! 1995! elections.! On! March! 23,! 1995,! petitioner! Raul! R.! Lee,! another! candidate,! filed! a! petition$4$with! the! Comelec!
docketed!as!SPA!No.!95D028!praying!that!Frivaldo!"be!disqualified!from!seeking!or!holding!any!public!office!or!position!by!reason!of!
not!yet!being!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines",!and!that!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!be!canceled.!On!May!1,!1995,!the!Second!Division!of!
the!Comelec!promulgated!a!Resolution$5granting!the!petition!with!the!following!disposition$6:!
WHEREFORE,!this!Division!resolves!to!GRANT!the!petition!and!declares!that!respondent!is!DISQUALIFIED!to!run!for!
the! Office! of! Governor! of! Sorsogon! on! the! ground! that! he! is! NOT! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines.! Accordingly,!
respondent's!certificate!of!candidacy!is!canceled.!
The! Motion! for! Reconsideration! filed! by! Frivaldo! remained! unacted! upon! until! after! the! May! 8,! 1995! elections.! So,! his! candidacy!
continued! and! he! was! voted! for! during! the! elections! held! on! said! date.! On! May! 11,! 1995,! the! Comelec!en, banc$7$affirmed! the!
aforementioned!Resolution!of!the!Second!Division.!
The!Provincial!Board!of!Canvassers!completed!the!canvass!of!the!election!returns!and!a!Certificate!of!Votes$8dated!May!27,!1995!
was!issued!showing!the!following!votes!obtained!by!the!candidates!for!the!position!of!Governor!of!Sorsogon:!
Antonio!H.!Escudero,!Jr.!51,060!
Juan!G.!Frivaldo!73,440!

Raul!R.!Lee!53,304!
Isagani!P.!Ocampo!1,925!
On! June! 9,! 1995,! Lee! filed! in! said! SPA! No.! 95D028,! a! (supplemental)! petition$9$praying! for! his! proclamation! as! the! dulyDelected!
Governor!of!Sorsogon.!
In! an! order$10!dated! June! 21,! 1995,! but! promulgated! according! to! the! petition! "only! on! June! 29,! 1995,"! the! Comelec!en,
banc!directed!"the!Provincial!Board!of!Canvassers!of!Sorsogon!to!reconvene!for!the!purpose!of!proclaiming!candidate!Raul!Lee!as!
the!winning!gubernatorial!candidate!in!the!province!of!Sorsogon!on!June!29,!1995!.!.!."!Accordingly,!at!8:30!in!the!evening!of!June!
30,!1995,!Lee!was!proclaimed!governor!of!Sorsogon.!
On!July!6,!1995,!Frivaldo!filed!with!the!Comelec!a!new!petition,$11!docketed!as!SPC!No.!95D317,!praying!for!the!annulment!of!the!
June!30,!1995!proclamation!of!Lee!and!for!his!own!proclamation.!He!alleged!that!on!June!30,!1995,!at!2:00!in!the!afternoon,!he!took!
his!oath!of!allegiance!as!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines!after!"his!petition!for!repatriation!under!P.D.!725!which!he!filed!with!the!Special!
Committee!on!Naturalization!in!September!1994!had!been!granted".!As!such,!when!"the!said!order!(dated!June!21,!1995)!(of!the!
Comelec)! .! .! .! was! released! and! received! by! Frivaldo! on! June! 30,! 1995! at! 5:30! o'clock! in! the! evening,! there! was! no! more! legal!
impediment!to!the!proclamation!(of!Frivaldo)!as!governor!.!.!."!In!the!alternative,!he!averred!that!pursuant!to!the!two!cases!of!Labo,
vs.!Comelec,$12!the!ViceDGovernor!D!not!Lee!D!should!occupy!said!position!of!governor.!
On! December! 19,! 1995,! the! Comelec! First! Division! promulgated! the! herein! assailed! Resolution$13!holding! that! Lee,! "not! having!
garnered! the! highest! number! of! votes,"! was! not! legally! entitled! to! be! proclaimed! as! dulyDelected! governor;! and! that! Frivaldo,!
"having!
garnered!
the!
highest!
number!
of!
votes,!
and!.!.!.!having!reacquired!his!Filipino!citizenship!by!repatriation!on!June!30,!1995!under!the!provisions!of!Presidential!Decree!No.!
725!.!.!.!(is)!qualified!to!hold!the!office!of!governor!of!Sorsogon";!thus:!
PREMISES!CONSIDERED,!the!Commission!(First!Division),!therefore!RESOLVES!to!GRANT!the!Petition.!
Consistent! with! the! decisions! of! the! Supreme! Court,! the! proclamation! of! Raul! R.! Lee! as! Governor! of! Sorsogon! is!
hereby!ordered!annulled,!being!contrary!to!law,!he!not!having!garnered!the!highest!number!of!votes!to!warrant!his!
proclamation.!

Upon!the!finality!of!the!annulment!of!the!proclamation!of!Raul!R.!Lee,!the!Provincial!Board!of!Canvassers!is!directed!
to!immediately!reconvene!and,!on!the!basis!of!the!completed!canvass,!proclaim!petitioner!Juan!G.!Frivaldo!as!the!duly!
elected! Governor! of! Sorsogon! having! garnered! the! highest! number! of! votes,! and! he! having! reacquired! his! Filipino!
citizenship!by!repatriation!on!June!30,!1995!under!the!provisions!of!Presidential!Decree!No.!725!and,!thus,!qualified!
to!hold!the!office!of!Governor!of!Sorsogon.!
Conformably!with!Section!260!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!(B.P.!Blg.!881),!the!Clerk!of!the!Commission!is!directed!to!
notify! His! Excellency! the! President! of! the! Philippines,! and! the! Secretary! of! the! Sangguniang! Panlalawigan! of! the!
Province!of!Sorsogon!of!this!resolution!immediately!upon!the!due!implementation!thereof.!
On! December! 26,! 1995,! Lee! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration! which! was! denied! by! the! Comelec!en, banc!in! its!
Resolution!14$promulgated!on!February!23,!1996.!On!February!26,!1996,!the!present!petition!was!filed.!Acting!on!the!prayer!for!a!
temporary!restraining!order,!this!Court!issued!on!February!27,!1996!a!Resolution!which!inter,alia,directed!the!parties!"to!maintain!
the!status,quo,prevailing!prior!to!the!filing!of!this!petition."!
The,Issues,in,G.R.,No.!123755!
Petitioner!Lee's!"position!on!the!matter!at!hand!may!briefly!be!capsulized!in!the!following!propositions"$15:!
First!DD! The! initiatory! petition! below! was! so! far! insufficient! in! form! and! substance! to! warrant! the! exercise! by! the!
COMELEC!of!its!jurisdiction!with!the!result!that,!in!effect,!the!COMELEC!acted!without!jurisdiction!in!taking!cognizance!
of!and!deciding!said!petition;!
Second,PP!The!judicially!declared!disqualification!of!respondent!was!a!continuing!condition!and!rendered!him!ineligible!
to!run!for,!to!be!elected!to!and!to!hold!the!Office!of!Governor;!
Third,PP!The!alleged!repatriation!of!respondent!was!neither!valid!nor!is!the!effect!thereof!retroactive!as!to!cure!his!
ineligibility!and!qualify!him!to!hold!the!Office!of!Governor;!and!
Fourth!DD!Correctly!read!and!applied,!the!Labo!Doctrine!fully!supports!the!validity!of!petitioner's!proclamation!as!duly!
elected!Governor!of!Sorsogon.!

G.R.!No.!120295!
This!is!a!petition!to!annul!three!Resolutions!of!the!respondent!Comelec,!the!first!two!of!which!are!also!at!issue!in!G.R.!No.!123755,!as!
follows:!
1.! Resolution$16!of! the! Second! Division,! promulgated! on! May! 1,! 1995,! disqualifying! Frivaldo! from! running! for!
governor!of!Sorsogon!in!the!May!8,!1995!elections!"on!the!ground!that!he!is!not!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines";!
2.!Resolution$17!of!the!Comelec!en,banc,!promulgated!on!May!11,!1995;!and!
3.!Resolution$18!of!the!Comelec!en,banc,!promulgated!also!on!May!11,!1995!suspending!the!proclamation!of,!among!
others,!Frivaldo.!
The,Facts,and,the,Issue,
The! facts! of! this! case! are! essentially! the! same! as! those! in! G.R.! No.! 123755.! However,! Frivaldo! assails! the! aboveDmentioned!
resolutions!on!a!different!ground:!that!under!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!which!is!reproduced!hereinunder:!
Sec.!78.!Petition,to,deny,due,course,or,to,cancel,a,certificate,of,candidacy.!DD!A!verified!petition!seeking!to!deny!due!
course!or!to!cancel!a!certificate!of!candidacy!may!be!filed!by!any!person!exclusively!on!the!ground!that!any!material!
representation!contained!therein!as!required!under!Section!74!hereof!is!false.!The!petition!may!be!filed!at!any!time!
not!later!than!twentyDfive!days!from!the!time!of!the!filing!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy!and!shall,be,decided,!after!
notice!and!hearing,!not,later,than,fifteen,days,before,the,election.!(Emphasis!supplied.)!
the! Comelec! had! no! jurisdiction! to! issue! said! Resolutions! because! they! were! not! rendered! "within! the! period! allowed! by!
law"!i.e.,!"not!later!than!fifteen!days!before!the!election."!
Otherwise!stated,!Frivaldo!contends!that!the!failure!of!the!Comelec!to!act!on!the!petition!for!disqualification!within!the!period!of!
fifteen!days!prior!to!the!election!as!provided!by!law!is!a!jurisdictional!defect!which!renders!the!said!Resolutions!null!and!void.!

By! Resolution! on! March! 12,! 1996,! the! Court! consolidated! G.R.! Nos.! 120295! and! 123755! since! they! are! intimately! related! in! their!
factual! environment! and! are! identical! in! the! ultimate! question! raised,!viz.,! who! should! occupy! the! position! of! governor! of! the!
province!of!Sorsogon.!
On! March! 19,! 1995,! the! Court! heard! oral! argument! from! the! parties! and! required! them! thereafter! to! file! simultaneously! their!
respective!memoranda.!
The,Consolidated,Issues,
From!the!foregoing!submissions,!the!consolidated!issues!may!be!restated!as!follows:!
1.! Was! the! repatriation! of! Frivaldo! valid! and! legal?! If! so,! did! it! seasonably! cure! his! lack! of! citizenship! as! to! qualify! him! to! be!
proclaimed!and!to!hold!the!Office!of!Governor?!If!not,!may!it!be!given!retroactive!effect?!If!so,!from!when?!
2.! Is! Frivaldo's! "judicially! declared"! disqualification! for! lack! of! Filipino! citizenship! a! continuing! bar! to! his! eligibility! to! run! for,! be!
elected!to!or!hold!the!governorship!of!Sorsogon?!
3.!Did!the!respondent!Comelec!have!jurisdiction!over!the!initiatory!petition!in!SPC!No.!95D317!considering!that!said!petition!is!not!"a!
preDproclamation!case,!an!election!protest!or!a!quo,warranto,case"?!
4.!Was!the!proclamation!of!Lee,!a!runnerDup!in!the!election,!valid!and!legal!in!light!of!existing!jurisprudence?!
5.! Did! the! respondent! Commission! on! Elections! exceed! its! jurisdiction! in! promulgating! the! assailed! Resolutions,! all! of! which!
prevented! Frivaldo! from! assuming! the! governorship! of! Sorsogon,! considering! that! they! were! not! rendered! within! the! period!
referred!to!in!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!viz.,!"not!later!than!fifteen!days!before!the!elections"?!
The,First,Issue:,Frivaldo's,Repatriation!
The!validity!and!effectivity!of!Frivaldo's!repatriation!is!the!lis,mota,!the!threshold!legal!issue!in!this!case.!All!the!other!matters!raised!
are!secondary!to!this.!

The!Local!Government!Code!of!1991$19!expressly!requires!Philippine!citizenship!as!a!qualification!for!elective!local!officials,!including!
that!of!provincial!governor,!thus:!
Sec.! 39.! Qualifications.! DD! (a)! An! elective! local! official! must! be! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines;! a! registered! voter! in! the!
barangay,!municipality,!city,!or!province!or,!in!the!case!of!a!member!of!the!sangguniang!panlalawigan,!sangguniang!
panlungsod,!or!sangguniang!bayan,!the!district!where!he!intends!to!be!elected;!a!resident!therein!for!at!least!one!(1)!
year!immediately!preceding!the!day!of!the!election;!and!able!to!read!and!write!Filipino!or!any!other!local!language!or!
dialect.!
(b)!Candidates!for!the!position!of!governor,!vice!governor!or!member!of!the!sangguniang!panlalawigan,!or!mayor,!vice!
mayor!or!member!of!the!sangguniang!panlungsod!of!highly!urbanized!cities!must!be!at!least!twentyDthree!(23)!years!
of!age!on!election!day.!
xxx!xxx!xxx!
Inasmuch!as!Frivaldo!had!been!declared!by!this!Court$20!as!a!nonDcitizen,!it!is!therefore!incumbent!upon!him!to!show!that!he!has!
reacquired!citizenship;!in!fine,!that!he!possesses!the!qualifications!prescribed!under!the!said!statute!(R.A.!7160).!
Under!Philippine!law,$21!citizenship!may!be!reacquired!by!direct!act!of!Congress,!by!naturalization!or!by!repatriation.!Frivaldo!told!
this!Court!in!G.R.!No.!104654$22!and!during!the!oral!argument!in!this!case!that!he!tried!to!resume!his!citizenship!by!direct,act,of,
Congress,!but!that!the!bill!allowing!him!to!do!so!"failed!to!materialize,!notwithstanding!the!endorsement!of!several!members!of!the!
House! of! Representatives"! due,! according! to! him,! to! the! "maneuvers! of! his! political! rivals."! In! the! same! case,! his! attempt!
at!naturalization,was!rejected!by!this!Court!because!of!jurisdictional,!substantial!and!procedural!defects.!
Despite!his!lack!of!Philippine!citizenship,!Frivaldo!was!overwhelmingly!elected!governor!by!the!electorate!of!Sorsogon,!with!a!margin!
of!27,000!votes!in!the!1988!elections,!57,000!in!1992,!and!20,000!in!1995!over!the!same!opponent!Raul!Lee.!Twice,!he!was!judicially!
declared!a!nonDFilipino!and!thus!twice!disqualified!from!holding!and!discharging!his!popular!mandate.!Now,!he!comes!to!us!a!third!
time,!with!a!fresh!vote!from!the!people!of!Sorsogon!and!a!favorable!decision!from!the!Commission!on!Elections!to!boot.!Moreover,!
he!now!boasts!of!having!successfully!passed!through!the!third!and!last!mode!of!reacquiring!citizenship:!by!repatriation!under!P.D.!
No.!725,!with!no!less!than!the!Solicitor!General!himself,!who!was!the!prime!opposing!counsel!in!the!previous!cases!he!lost,!this!time,!
as!counsel!for!coDrespondent!Comelec,!arguing!the!validity!of!his!cause!(in!addition!to!his!able!private!counsel!Sixto!S.!Brillantes,!Jr.).!
That! he! took! his! oath! of! allegiance! under! the! provisions! of! said! Decree! at! 2:00! p.m.! on! June! 30,! 1995! is! not! disputed.! Hence,! he!

insists! that! he! DD! not! Lee! DD! should! have! been! proclaimed! as! the! dulyDelected! governor! of! Sorsogon! when! the! Provincial! Board! of!
Canvassers! met! at! 8:30! p.m.! on! the! said! date! since,! clearly! and! unquestionably,! he! garnered! the! highest! number! of! votes! in! the!
elections!and!since!at!that!time,!he!already!reacquired!his!citizenship.!
En,contrario,!Lee!argues!that!Frivaldo's!repatriation!is!tainted!with!serious!defects,!which!we!shall!now!discuss!in,seriatim.!
First,! Lee! tells! us! that! P.D.! No.! 725! had! "been! effectively! repealed",! asserting! that! "then! President! Corazon! Aquino! exercising!
legislative!powers!under!the!Transitory!Provisions!of!the!1987!Constitution,!forbade!the!grant!of!citizenship!by!Presidential!Decree!
or!Executive!Issuances!as!the!same!poses!a!serious!and!contentious!issue!of!policy!which!the!present!government,!in!the!exercise!of!
prudence!and!sound!discretion,!should!best!leave!to!the!judgment!of!the!first!Congress!under!the!1987!Constitution",!adding!that!in!
her!memorandum!dated!March!27,!1987!to!the!members!of!the!Special!Committee!on!Naturalization!constituted!for!purposes!of!
Presidential!Decree!No.!725,!President!Aquino!directed!them!"to!cease!and!desist!from!undertaking!any!and!all!proceedings!within!
your!functional!area!of!responsibility!as!defined!under!Letter!of!Instructions!(LOI)!No.!270!dated!April!11,!1975,!as!amended."$23!
This! memorandum! dated! March! 27,! 1987$24!cannot! by! any! stretch! of! legal! hermeneutics! be! construed! as! a! law! sanctioning! or!
authorizing!a!repeal!of!P.D.!No.!725.!Laws!are!repealed!only!by!subsequent!ones!25$and!a!repeal!may!be!express!or!implied.!It!is!
obvious!that!no,express,repeal,was!made!because!then!President!Aquino!in!her!memorandum!DD!based!on!the!copy!furnished!us!by!
Lee!DD!did!not!categorically!and/or!impliedly!state!that!P.D.!725!was!being!repealed!or!was!being!rendered!without!any!legal!effect.!
In!fact,!she!did!not!even!mention!it!specifically!by!its!number!or!text.!On!the!other!hand,!it!is!a!basic!rule!of!statutory!construction!
that!repeals, by, implication,are! not! favored.! An! implied! repeal! will! not! be! allowed! "unless! it! is! convincingly! and! unambiguously!
demonstrated!that!the!two!laws!are!clearly!repugnant!and!patently!inconsistent!that!they!cannot!coDexist".$26!
The!memorandum!of!then!President!Aquino!cannot!even!be!regarded!as!a!legislative!enactment,!for!not!every!pronouncement!of!
the!Chief!Executive!even!under!the!Transitory!Provisions!of!the!1987!Constitution!can!nor!should!be!regarded!as!an!exercise!of!her!
lawDmaking!powers.!At!best,!it!could!be!treated!as!an!executive!policy!addressed!to!the!Special!Committee!to!halt!the!acceptance!
and!processing!of!applications!for!repatriation!pending!whatever!"judgment!the!first!Congress!under!the!1987!Constitution"!might!
make.!In!other!words,!the!former!President!did!not!repeal!P.D.!725!but!left!it!to!the!first!Congress!DD!once!created!DD!to!deal!with!the!
matter.!If!she!had!intended!to!repeal!such!law,!she!should!have!unequivocally!said!so!instead!of!referring!the!matter!to!Congress.!
The!fact!is!she!carefully!couched!her!presidential!issuance!in!terms!that!clearly!indicated!the!intention!of!"the!present!government,!
in!the!exercise!of!prudence!and!sound!discretion"!to!leave!the!matter!of!repeal!to!the!new!Congress.!Any!other!interpretation!of!the!
said!Presidential!Memorandum,!such!as!is!now!being!proffered!to!the!Court!by!Lee,!would!visit!unmitigated!violence!not!only!upon!
statutory!construction!but!on!common!sense!as!well.!

Second,! Lee! also! argues! that! "serious! congenital! irregularities! flawed! the! repatriation! proceedings,"! asserting! that! Frivaldo's!
application!therefor!was!"filed!on!June!29,!1995!.!.!.!(and)!was!approved!in!just!one!day!or!on!June!30,!1995!.!.!.",!which!"prevented!a!
judicious!review!and!evaluation!of!the!merits!thereof."!Frivaldo!counters!that!he!filed!his!application!for!repatriation!with!the!Office!
of! the! President! in! Malacaang! Palace! on! August! 17,! 1994.! This! is! confirmed! by! the! Solicitor! General.! However,! the! Special!
Committee!was!reactivated!only!on!June!8,!1995,!when!presumably!the!said!Committee!started!processing!his!application.!On!June!
29,!1995,!he!filled!up!and!reDsubmitted!the!FORM!that!the!Committee!required.!Under!these!circumstances,!it!could!not!be!said!that!
there!was!"indecent!haste"!in!the!processing!of!his!application.!
Anent!Lee's!charge!that!the!"sudden!reconstitution!of!the!Special!Committee!on!Naturalization!was!intended!solely!for!the!personal!
interest! of! respondent,"$27!the! Solicitor! General! explained! during! the! oral! argument! on! March! 19,! 1996! that! such! allegation! is!
simply!baseless!as!there!were!many!others!who!applied!and!were!considered!for!repatriation,!a!list!of!whom!was!submitted!by!him!
to!this!Court,!through!a!Manifestation$28!filed!on!April!3,!1996.!
On!the!basis!of!the!parties'!submissions,!we!are!convinced!that!the!presumption!of!regularity!in!the!performance!of!official!duty!and!
the! presumption! of! legality! in! the! repatriation! of! Frivaldo! have! not! been! successfully! rebutted! by! Lee.! The! mere! fact! that! the!
proceedings! were! speeded! up! is! by! itself! not! a! ground! to! conclude! that! such! proceedings! were! necessarily! tainted.! After! all,! the!
requirements!of!repatriation!under!P.D.!No.!725!are!not!difficult!to!comply!with,!nor!are!they!tedious!and!cumbersome.!In!fact,!P.D.!
725$29!itself!requires!very!little!of!an!applicant,!and!even!the!rules!and!regulations!to!implement!the!said!decree!were!left!to!the!
Special! Committee! to! promulgate.! This! is! not! unusual! since,! unlike! in! naturalization! where! an! alien! covets! a,firstPtimeentry! into!
Philippine!political!life,!in!repatriation!the!applicant!is!a!former!naturalDborn!Filipino!who!is!merely!seeking!to!reacquire!his!previous!
citizenship.!In!the!case!of!Frivaldo,!he!was!undoubtedly!a!naturalDborn!citizen!who!openly!and!faithfully!served!his!country!and!his!
province! prior! to! his! naturalization! in! the! United! States! DD! a! naturalization! he! insists! was! made! necessary! only! to! escape! the! iron!
clutches! of! a! dictatorship! he! abhorred! and! could! not! in! conscience! embrace! DD! and! who,! after! the! fall! of! the! dictator! and! the! reD
establishment!of!democratic!space,!wasted!no!time!in!returning!to!his!country!of!birth!to!offer!once!more!his!talent!and!services!to!
his!people.!
So!too,!the!fact!that!ten!other!persons,!as!certified!to!by!the!Solicitor!General,!were!granted!repatriation!argues!convincingly!and!
conclusively!against!the!existence!of!favoritism!vehemently!posited!by!Raul!Lee.!At!any!rate,!any!contest!on!the!legality!of!Frivaldo's!
repatriation!should!have!been!pursued!before!the!Committee!itself,!and,!failing!there,!in!the!Office!of!the!President,!pursuant!to!the!
doctrine!of!exhaustion!of!administrative!remedies.!

Third,!Lee!further!contends!that!assuming!the!assailed!repatriation!to!be!valid,!nevertheless!it!could!only!be!effective!as!at!2:00!p.m.!
of! June! 30,! 1995! whereas! the! citizenship! qualification! prescribed! by! the! Local! Government! Code! "must! exist! on! the! date! of! his!
election,! if! not! when! the! certificate! of! candidacy! is! filed,"! citing! our! decision! in! G.R.! 104654$30!which! held! that! "both! the! Local!
Government! Code! and! the! Constitution! require! that! only! Philippine! citizens!can, run, and, be, elected, to, public, office."! Obviously,!
however,!this!was!a!mere!obiter!as!the!only!issue!in!said!case!was!whether!Frivaldo's!naturalization!was!valid!or!not!DD!and!NOT!the!
effective! date! thereof.! Since! the! Court! held! his! naturalization! to! be! invalid,! then! the! issue! of! when! an! aspirant! for! public! office!
should!be!a!citizen!was!NOT!resolved!at!all!by!the!Court.!Which!question!we!shall!now!directly!rule!on.!
Under!Sec.!39!of!the!Local!Government!Code,!"(a)n!elective!local!official!must!be:!
*!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines;!
*!a!registered!voter!in!the!barangay,!municipality,!city,!or!province!.!.!.!where!he!intends!to!be!elected;!
*!a!resident!therein!for!at!least!one!(1)!year!immediately!preceding!the!day!of!the!election;!
*!able!to!read!and!write!Filipino!or!any!other!local!language!or!dialect.!
*!In!addition,!"candidates!for!the!position!of!governor!.!.!.!must!be!at!least!twentyDthree!(23)!years!of!age!on!election!
day.!
From! the! above,! it! will! be! noted! that! the! law! does! not! specify! any! particular! date! or! time! when! the! candidate! must! possess!
citizenship,!unlike!that!for!residence!(which!must!consist!of!at!least!one,year's,residency,immediately,preceding!the!day!of!election)!
and!age!(at!least!twenty!three!years!of!age!on,election,day).!
Philippine! citizenship! is! an! indispensable! requirement! for! holding! an! elective! public! office,$31!and! the! purpose! of! the! citizenship!
qualification!is!none!other!than!to!ensure!that!no!alien,!i.e.,!no!person!owing!allegiance!to!another!nation,!shall!govern!our!people!
and! our! country! or! a! unit! of! territory! thereof.! Now,! an! official! begins! to! govern! or! to! discharge! his! functions! only! upon! his!
proclamation!and!on! the! day! the! law! mandates! his! term! of! office! to! begin.! Since! Frivaldo! reDassumed! his! citizenship! on! June! 30,!
1995!DD!the!very!day$32!the!term!of!office!of!governor!(and!other!elective!officials)!began!DD!he!was!therefore!already!qualified!to!be!
proclaimed,!to!hold!such!office!and!to!discharge!the!functions!and!responsibilities!thereof!as!of!said!date.!In!short,!at!that!time,!he!
was!already!qualified!to!govern!his!native!Sorsogon.!This!is!the!liberal!interpretation!that!should!give!spirit,!life!and!meaning!to!our!

law! on! qualifications! consistent! with! the! purpose! for! which! such! law! was! enacted.! So! too,! even! from! a!literal,(as! distinguished!
from!liberal)!construction,!it!should!be!noted!that!Section!39!of!the!Local!Government!Code!speaks!of!"Qualifications"!of!"ELECTIVE!
OFFICIALS",!not,of,candidates.!Why!then!should!such!qualification!be!required!at!the!time!of!election!or!at!the!time!of!the!filing!of!
the!certificates!of!candidacies,!as!Lee!insists?!Literally,!such!qualifications!DD!unless!otherwise!expressly!conditioned,!as!in!the!case!of!
age! and! residence! DD! should! thus! be! possessed! when! the! "elective! [or! elected]! official"! begins! to! govern,!i.e.,! at! the! time! he! is!
proclaimed!and,at!the!start!of!his!term!DD!in!this!case,!on!June!30,!1995.!Paraphrasing!this!Court's!ruling!in!Vasquez,vs.!Giap,and,Li,
Seng,Giap,&,Sons,!33$if!the!purpose!of!the!citizenship!requirement!is!to!ensure!that!our!people!and!country!do!not!end!up!being!
governed! by! aliens,i.e.,! persons! owing! allegiance! to! another! nation,! that! aim! or! purpose! would!not, be, thwarted, but, instead,
achieved,by!construing!the!citizenship!qualification!as!applying!to!the!time!of!proclamation!of!the!elected!official!and!at!the!start!of!
his!term.!
But! perhaps! the! more! difficult! objection! was! the! one! raised! during! the! oral! argument$34!to! the! effect! that! the! citizenship!
qualification!should!be!possessed!at!the!time!the!candidate!(or!for!that!matter!the!elected!official)!registered!as!a!voter.!After!all,!
Section!39,!apart!from!requiring!the!official!to!be!a!citizen,!also!specifies!as!another!item!of!qualification,!that!he!be!a!"registered!
voter".!And,!under!the!law$35!a!"voter"!must!be!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!So!therefore,!Frivaldo!could!not!have!been!a!voter!DD!
much!less!a!validly,registered!one!DD!if!he!was!not!a!citizen!at!the!time!of!such!registration.!
The!answer!to!this!problem!again!lies!in!discerning!the!purpose!of!the!requirement.!If!the!law!intended!thecitizenship!qualification!
to! be! possessed! prior! to! election! consistent! with! the! requirement! of! being! a! registered! voter,! then! it! would! not! have! made!
citizenship!a!SEPARATE!qualification.!The!law!abhors!a!redundancy.!It!therefore!stands!to!reason!that!the!law!intended!CITIZENSHIP!
to!be!a!qualification!distinct!from!being!a!VOTER,!even!if!being!a!voter!presumes!being!a!citizen!first.!It!also!stands!to!reason!that!the!
voter!requirement!was!included!as!another!qualification!(aside!from!"citizenship"),!not!to!reiterate!the!need!for!nationality!but!to!
require!that!the!official!be!registered!as!a!voter!IN!THE!AREA!OR!TERRITORY!he!seeks!to!govern,!i.e.,!the!law!states:!"a!registered!
voter!in!the!barangay,!municipality,!city,!or!province!.!.!.!where!he!intends!to!be!elected."!It!should!be!emphasized!that!the!Local!
Government!Code!requires!an!elective!official!to!be!a!registered,voter.!It!does!not!require!him!to!vote!actually.!Hence,!registration!DD!
not!the!actual!voting!DD!is!the!core!of!this!"qualification".!In!other!words,!the!law's!purpose!in!this!second!requirement!is!to!ensure!
that!the!prospective!official!is!actually!registered!in!the!area!he!seeks!to!govern!DD!and,not,anywhere,else.!
Before! this! Court,! Frivaldo! has! repeatedly! emphasized! DD! and! Lee! has! not! disputed! DD! that! he! "was! and! is! a! registered! voter! of!
Sorsogon,!and!his!registration!as!a!voter!has!been!sustained!as!valid!by!judicial!declaration!.!.!.!In!fact,!he!cast!his!vote!in!his!precinct!
on!May!8,!1995."$36!

So! too,! during! the! oral! argument,! his! counsel! steadfastly! maintained! that! "Mr.! Frivaldo! has! always! been! a! registered! voter! of!
Sorsogon.!He!has!voted!in!1987,!1988,!1992,!then!he!voted!again!in!1995.!In!fact,!his!eligibility!as!a!voter!was!questioned,!but!the!
court!dismissed!(sic)!his!eligibility!as!a!voter!and!he!was!allowed!to!vote!as!in!fact,!he!voted!in!all!the!previous!elections!including!on!
May!8,!1995."$37!
It!is!thus!clear!that!Frivaldo!is!a!registered,voter,in,the,province!where!he!intended!to!be!elected.!
There!is!yet!another!reason!why!the!prime!issue!of!citizenship!should!be!reckoned!from!the!date!of!proclamation,!not!necessarily!
the!date!of!election!or!date!of!filing!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy.!Section!253!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!38$gives!any!voter,!
presumably!including!the!defeated!candidate,!the!opportunity!to!question!the!ELIGIBILITY!(or!the!disloyalty)!of!a!candidate.!This!is!
the!only!provision!of!the!Code!that!authorizes!a!remedy!on!how!to!contest!before!the!Comelec!an!incumbent's!ineligibility!arising!
from!failure!to!meet!the!qualifications!enumerated!under!Sec.!39!of!the!Local!Government!Code.!Such!remedy!of!Quo,Warranto,can!
be! availed! of! "within! ten! days! after! proclamation"! of! the! winning! candidate.! Hence,! it! is!only, at, such, time,that! the! issue! of!
ineligibility!may!be!taken!cognizance!of!by!the!Commission.!And!since,!at!the!very!moment!of!Lee's!proclamation!(8:30!p.m.,!June!
30,!1995),!Juan!G.!Frivaldo!was!already!and!indubitably!a!citizen,!having!taken!his!oath!of!allegiance!earlier!in!the!afternoon!of!the!
same!day,!then!he!should!have!been!the!candidate!proclaimed!as!he!unquestionably!garnered!the!highest!number!of!votes!in!the!
immediately!preceding!elections!and!such!oath!had!already!cured!his!previous!"judiciallyDdeclared"!alienage.!Hence,!at!such!time,!he!
was!no!longer!ineligible.!
But!to!remove!all!doubts!on!this!important!issue,!we!also!hold!that!the!repatriation!of!Frivaldo!RETROACTED!to!the!date!of!the!filing!
of!his!application!on!August!17,!1994.!
It!is!true!that!under!the!Civil!Code!of!the!Philippines,!39$"(l)aws!shall!have!no!retroactive!effect,!unless!the!contrary!is!provided."!But!
there! are! settled! exceptions$40!to! this! general! rule,! such! as! when! the! statute! is! CURATIVE! or! REMEDIAL! in! nature! or! when! it!
CREATES!NEW!RIGHTS.!
According!to!Tolentino,$41!curative!statutes!are!those!which!undertake!to!cure!errors!and!irregularities,!thereby!validating!judicial!or!
administrative!proceedings,!acts!of!public!officers,!or!private!deeds!and!contracts!which,otherwise,would,not,produce,their,intended,
consequences, by, reason, of, some, statutory, disability, or, failure, to, comply, with, some, technical, requirement.! They! operate! on!
conditions!already!existing,!and!are!necessarily!retroactive!in!operation.!Agpalo,$42!on!the!other!hand,!says!that!curative!statutes!
are!
"healing!acts!.!.!.!curing!defects!and!adding!to!the!means!of!enforcing!existing!obligations!.!.!.!(and)!are!intended!to!supply!defects,!

abridge!superfluities!in!existing!laws,!and!curb!certain!evils.!.!.!.!By!their!very!nature,!curative!statutes!are!retroactive!.!.!.!(and)!reach!
back!to!past!events!to!correct!errors!or!irregularities!and!to!render!valid!and!effective!attempted!acts!which!would!be!otherwise!
ineffective!for!the!purpose!the!parties!intended."!
On!the!other!hand,!remedial!or!procedural!laws,!i.e.,!those!statutes!relating!to!remedies!or!modes!of!procedure,!which!do!not!create!
new!or!take!away!vested!rights,!but!only!operate!in!furtherance!of!the!remedy!or!confirmation!of!such!rights,!ordinarily!do!not!come!
within!the!legal!meaning!of!a!retrospective!law,!nor!within!the!general!rule!against!the!retrospective!operation!of!statutes.$43!
A!reading!of!P.D.!725!immediately!shows!that!it!creates!a!new!right,!and!also!provides!for!a!new!remedy,!thereby!filling!certain!voids!
in!our!laws.!Thus,!in!its!preamble,!P.D.!725!expressly!recognizes!the!plight!of!"many!Filipino!women!(who)!had!lost!their!Philippine!
citizenship! by! marriage! to! aliens"! and! who! could! not,! under! the! existing! law! (C.A.! No.! 63,! as! amended)! avail! of! repatriation! until!
"after! the! death! of! their! husbands! or! the! termination! of! their! marital! status"! and! who! could! neither! be! benefitted! by! the! 1973!
Constitution's!new!provision!allowing!"a!Filipino!woman!who!marries!an!alien!to!retain!her!Philippine!citizenship!.!.!."!because!"such!
provision!of!the!new!Constitution!does!not!apply!to!Filipino!women!who!had!married!aliens!before!said!constitution!took!effect."!
Thus,!P.D.!725!granted!a!new,right!to!these!women!DD!the!right!to!reDacquire!Filipino!citizenship!even!during!their!marital!coverture,!
which!right!did!not!exist!prior!to!P.D.!725.!On!the!other!hand,!said!statute!also!provided!a!new,remedyand!a!new,right!in!favor!of!
other!"natural!born!Filipinos!who!(had)!lost!their!Philippine!citizenship!but!now!desire!to!reDacquire!Philippine!citizenship",!because!
prior! to! the! promulgation! of! P.D.! 725! such! former! Filipinos! would! have! had! to! undergo! the! tedious! and! cumbersome! process! of!
naturalization,!but!with!the!advent!of!P.D.!725!they!could!now!reDacquire!their!Philippine!citizenship!under!the!simplified!procedure!
of!repatriation.!
The!Solicitor!General$44!argues:!
By!their!very!nature,!curative!statutes!are!retroactive,!(DBP!vs.!CA,!96!SCRA!342),!since!they!are!intended!to!supply!
defects,!abridge!superfluities!in!existing!laws!(Del!Castillo!vs.!Securities!and!Exchange!Commission,!96!Phil.!119)!and!
curb!certain!evils!(Santos!vs.!Duata,!14!SCRA!1041).!
In! this! case,! P.D.! No.! 725! was! enacted! to! cure! the! defect! in! the! existing! naturalization! law,! specifically! C.A.! No.! 63!
wherein!married!Filipino!women!are!allowed!to!repatriate!only!upon!the!death!of!their!husbands,!and!naturalDborn!
Filipinos! who! lost! their! citizenship! by! naturalization! and! other! causes! faced! the! difficulty! of! undergoing! the! rigid!
procedures!of!C.A.!63!for!reacquisition!of!Filipino!citizenship!by!naturalization.!

Presidential!Decree!No.!725!provided!a!remedy!for!the!aforementioned!legal!aberrations!and!thus!its!provisions!are!
considered!essentially!remedial!and!curative.!
In!light!of!the!foregoing,!and!prescinding!from!the!wording!of!the!preamble,!it!is!unarguable!that!the!legislative!intent!was!precisely!
to!give!the!statute!retroactive!operation.!"(A)!retrospective!operation!is!given!to!a!statute!or!amendment!where!the!intent!that!it!
should! so! operate! clearly! appears! from! a! consideration! of! the! act! as! a! whole,! or! from! the! terms! thereof."$45!It! is! obvious! to! the!
Court!that!the!statute!was!meant!to!"reach!back"!to!those!persons,!events!and!transactions!not!otherwise!covered!by!prevailing!law!
and!jurisprudence.!And!inasmuch!as!it!has!been!held!that!citizenship!is!a!political!and!civil!right!equally!as!important!as!the!freedom!
of! speech,! liberty! of! abode,! the! right! against! unreasonable! searches! and! seizures! and! other! guarantees! enshrined! in! the! Bill! of!
Rights,!therefore!the!legislative!intent!to!give!retrospective!operation!to!P.D.!725!must!be!given!the!fullest!effect!possible.!"(I)t!has!
been!said!that!a,remedial,statute,must,be,so,construed,as,to,make,it,effect,the,evident,purpose,for,which,it,was,enacted,!so!that!
if!the, reason, of, the, statute, extends, to, past, transactions,! as! well! as! to! those! in! the! future,! then! it! will! be! so! applied! although! the!
statute!does!not!in!terms!so!direct,!unless!to!do!so!would!impair!some!vested!right!or!violate!some!constitutional!guaranty."$46!This!
is! all! the! more! true! of! P.D.! 725,! which! did! not! specify! any! restrictions! on! or! delimit! or! qualify! the! right! of! repatriation! granted!
therein.!
At!this!point,!a!valid!question!may!be!raised:!How!can!the!retroactivity!of!P.D.!725!benefit!Frivaldo!considering!that!said!law!was!
enacted! on! June! 5,! 1975,! while! Frivaldo! lost! his! Filipino! citizenship! much! later,! on! January! 20,! 1983,! and! applied! for! repatriation!
even!later,!on!August!17,!1994?!
While!it!is!true!that!the!law!was!already!in!effect!at!the!time!that!Frivaldo!became!an!American!citizen,!nevertheless,!it!is!not!only!
the!law!itself!(P.D.!725)!which!is!to!be!given!retroactive!effect,!but!even!the!repatriation!granted!under!said!law!to!Frivaldo!on!June!
30,!1995!is!to!be!deemed!to!have!retroacted!to!the!date!of!his!application!therefor,!August!17,!1994.!The!reason!for!this!is!simply!
that! if,! as! in! this! case,! it! was! the! intent! of! the! legislative! authority! that! the! law! should! apply! to,past!events! DD!i.e.,! situations! and!
transactions!existing, even, before, the, law, came, into, being,DD! in! order! to! benefit! the! greatest! number! of! former! Filipinos! possible!
thereby!enabling!them!to!enjoy!and!exercise!the!constitutionally!guaranteed!right!of!citizenship,!and!such!legislative!intention!is!to!
be!given!the!fullest!effect!and!expression,!then!there,is,all,the,more,reason,to,have,the,law,apply,in,a,retroactive,or,retrospective,
manner,to,situations,,events,and,transactions,subsequent,to,the,passage,of,such,law.!That!is,!the!repatriation!granted!to!Frivaldo!on!
June!30,!1995!can!and!should!be!made!to!take!effect!as!of!date!of!his!application.!As!earlier!mentioned,!there!is!nothing!in!the!law!
that!would!bar!this!or!would!show!a!contrary!intention!on!the!part!of!the!legislative!authority;!and!there!is!no!showing!that!damage!
or! prejudice! to! anyone,! or! anything! unjust! or! injurious! would! result! from! giving! retroactivity! to! his! repatriation.! Neither! has! Lee!

shown! that! there! will! result! the! impairment! of! any! contractual! obligation,! disturbance! of! any! vested! right! or! breach! of! some!
constitutional!guaranty.!
Being! a! former! Filipino! who! has! served! the! people! repeatedly,! Frivaldo! deserves! a! liberal! interpretation! of! Philippine! laws! and!
whatever!defects!there!were!in!his!nationality!should!now!be!deemed!mooted!by!his!repatriation.!
Another!argument!for!retroactivity!to!the!date!of!filing!is!that!it!would!prevent!prejudice!to!applicants.!If!P.D.!725!were!not!to!be!
given!retroactive!effect,!and!the!Special!Committee!decides!not!to!act,!i.e.,!to!delay!the!processing!of!applications!for!any!substantial!
length!of!time,!then!the!former!Filipinos!who!may!be!stateless,!as!Frivaldo!DD!having!already!renounced!his!American!citizenship!DD!
was,!may!be!prejudiced!for!causes!outside!their!control.!This!should!not!be.!In!case!of!doubt!in!the!interpretation!or!application!of!
laws,!it!is!to!be!presumed!that!the!lawDmaking!body!intended!right!and!justice!to!prevail.$47!
And! as! experience! will! show,! the! Special! Committee! was! able! to! process,! act! upon! and! grant! applications! for! repatriation! within!
relatively!short!spans!of!time!after!the!same!were!filed.$48!The!fact!that!such!interregna!were!relatively!insignificant!minimizes!the!
likelihood!of!prejudice!to!the!government!as!a!result!of!giving!retroactivity!to!repatriation.!Besides,!to!the!mind!of!the!Court,!direct!
prejudice! to! the! government! is! possible! only! where! a! person's! repatriation! has! the! effect! of! wiping! out! a! liability! of! his! to! the!
government! arising! in! connection! with! or! as! a! result! of! his! being! an! alien,! and! accruing! only! during! the! interregnum! between!
application!and!approval,!a!situation!that!is!not!present!in!the!instant!case.!
And!it!is!but!right!and!just!that!the!mandate!of!the!people,!already!twice!frustrated,!should!now!prevail.!Under!the!circumstances,!
there! is! nothing! unjust! or! iniquitous! in! treating! Frivaldo's! repatriation! as! having! become! effective! as! of! the! date! of! his!
application,!i.e.,!on!August!17,!1994.!This!being!so,!all!questions!about!his!possession!of!the!nationality!qualification!DD!whether!at!
the!date!of!proclamation!(June!30,!1995)!or!the!date!of!election!(May!8,!1995)!or!date!of!filing!his!certificate!of!candidacy!(March!20,!
1995)!would!become!moot.!
Based!on!the!foregoing,!any!question!regarding!Frivaldo's!status!as!a!registered!voter!would!also!be!deemed!settled.!Inasmuch!as!he!
is!considered!as!having!been!repatriated!DD!i.e.,!his!Filipino!citizenship!restored!DD!as!of!August!17,!1994,!his!previous!registration!as!a!
voter!is!likewise!deemed!validated!as!of!said!date.!
It!is!not!disputed!that!on!January!20,!1983!Frivaldo!became!an!American.!Would!the!retroactivity!of!his!repatriation!not!effectively!
give!him!dual!citizenship,!which!under!Sec.!40!of!the!Local!Government!Code!would!disqualify!him!"from!running!for!any!elective!
local!position?"$49!We!answer!this!question!in!the!negative,!as!there!is!cogent!reason!to!hold!that!Frivaldo!was!really!STATELESS!at!

the!time!he!took!said!oath!of!allegiance!and!even!before!that,!when!he!ran!for!governor!in!1988.!In!his!Comment,!Frivaldo!wrote!
that!he!"had!long!renounced!and!had!long!abandoned!his!American!citizenship!DD!long!before!May!8,!1995.!At!best,!Frivaldo!was!
stateless! in! the! interim! DD! when! he! abandoned! and! renounced! his! US! citizenship! but! before! he! was! repatriated! to! his! Filipino!
citizenship."$50!
On!this!point,!we!quote!from!the!assailed!Resolution!dated!December!19,!1995:$51!
By!the!laws!of!the!United!States,!petitioner!Frivaldo!lost!his!American!citizenship!when!he!took!his!oath!of!allegiance!
to!the!Philippine!Government!when!he!ran!for!Governor!in!1988,!in!1992,!and!in!1995.!Every!certificate!of!candidacy!
contains!an!oath!of!allegiance!to!the!Philippine!Government."!
These! factual! findings! that! Frivaldo! has! lost! his! foreign! nationality! long! before! the! elections! of! 1995! have! not! been! effectively!
rebutted!by!Lee.!Furthermore,!it!is!basic!that!such!findings!of!the!Commission!are!conclusive!upon!this!Court,!absent!any!showing!of!
capriciousness!
or!
arbitrariness!
or!
abuse.$52!
The,
Second,
a,Continuing,Disqualification?!

Issue:,

Is,

Lack,

of,

Citizenship,

Lee! contends! that! the! May! 1,! 1995! Resolution!53$of! the! Comelec! Second! Division! in! SPA! No.! 95D028! as! affirmed!in, toto!by!
Comelec!En,Banc!in!its!Resolution!of!May!11,!1995!"became!final!and!executory!after!five!(5)!days!or!on!May!17,!1995,!no!restraining!
order!having!been!issued!by!this!Honorable!Court.$54!Hence,!before!Lee!"was!proclaimed!as!the!elected!governor!on!June!30,!1995,!
there!was!already!a!final!and!executory!judgment!disqualifying"!Frivaldo.!Lee!adds!that!this!Court's!two!rulings!(which!Frivaldo!now!
concedes!were!legally!"correct")!declaring!Frivaldo!an!alien!have!also!become!final!and!executory!way!before!the!1995!elections,!
and!these!"judicial!pronouncements!of!his!political!status!as!an!American!citizen!absolutely!and!for!all!time!disqualified!(him)!from!
running!for,!and!holding!any!public!office!in!the!Philippines."!
We!do!not!agree.!
It!should!be!noted!that!our!first!ruling!in!G.R.!No.!87193!disqualifying!Frivaldo!was!rendered!in!connection!with!the!1988!elections!
while!that!in!G.R.!No.!104654!was!in!connection!with!the!1992!elections.!That!he!was!disqualified!for!such!elections!is!final!and!can!
no!longer!be!changed.!In!the!words!of!the!respondent!Commission!(Second!Division)!in!its!assailed!Resolution:$55!

The! records! show! that! the! Honorable! Supreme! Court! had! decided! that! Frivaldo! was! not! a! Filipino! citizen! and! thus!
disqualified!for!the!purpose!of!the!1988!and!1992!elections.!However,!there!is!no!record!of!any!"final!judgment"!of!
the!disqualification!of!Frivaldo!as!a!candidate!for!the!May!8,!1995!elections.!What!the!Commission!said!in!its!Order!of!
June!21,!1995!(implemented,on,June,30,,1995),!directing!the!proclamation!of!Raul!R.!Lee,!was!that!Frivaldo!was!not!a!
Filipino! citizen! "having, been, declared, by, the, Supreme, Court, in, its, Order, dated, March, 25,, 1995,, not, a, citizen, of, the,
Philippines."!This!declaration!of!the!Supreme!Court,!however,!was!in!connection!with!the!1992!elections.!
Indeed,! decisions! declaring! the! acquisition! or! denial! of! citizenship! cannot! govern! a! person's! future! status! with! finality.! This! is!
because!a!person!may!subsequently!reacquire,!or!for!that!matter!lose,!his!citizenship!under!any!of!the!modes!recognized!by!law!for!
the!purpose.!Hence,!in!Lee,vs.!Commissioner,of,Immigration,$56!we!held:!
Everytime! the! citizenship! of! a! person! is! material! or! indispensable! in! a! judicial! or! administrative! case,! whatever! the!
corresponding!court!or!administrative!authority!decides!therein!as!to!such!citizenship!is!generally!not!considered!res,
judicata,!hence!it!has!to!be!threshed!out!again!and!again,!as!the!occasion!demands.!
The,
Third,
Over,The,Petition,in,SPC,No.,95P317!

Issue:,

Comelec's,

Jurisdiction,

Lee!also!avers!that!respondent!Comelec!had!no!jurisdiction!to!entertain!the!petition!in!SPC!No.!95D317!because!the!only!"possible!
types! of! proceedings! that! may! be! entertained! by! the! Comelec! are! a! preDproclamation! case,! an! election! protest! or! a!quo,
warranto,case".!Again,!Lee!reminds!us!that!he!was!proclaimed!on!June!30,!1995!but!that!Frivaldo!filed!SPC!No.!95D317!questioning!
his! (Lee's)! proclamation! only! on! July! 6,! 1995! DD! "beyond! the! 5Dday! reglementary! period."! Hence,! according! to! him,! Frivaldo's!
"recourse!was!to!file!either!an!election!protest!or!a!quo,warranto!action."!
This!argument!is!not!meritorious.!The!Constitution$57!has!given!the!Comelec!ample!power!to!"exercise!exclusive!original!jurisdiction!
over!all!contests!relating!to!the!elections,!returns!and!qualifications!of!all!elective!.!.!.!provincial!.!.!.!officials."!Instead!of!dwelling!at!
length!on!the!various!petitions!that!Comelec,!in!the!exercise!of!its!constitutional!prerogatives,!may!entertain,!suffice!it!to!say!that!
this!Court!has!invariably!recognized!the!Commission's!authority!to!hear!and!decide!petitions!for!annulment!of!proclamations!DD!of!
which!SPC!No.!95D317!obviously!is!one.$58!Thus,!in!Mentang,vs.COMELEC,$59!we!ruled:!
The!petitioner!argues!that!after!proclamation!and!assumption!of!office,!a!preDproclamation!controversy!is!no!longer!
viable.!Indeed,!we!are!aware!of!cases!holding!that!preDproclamation!controversies!may!no!longer!be!entertained!by!

the!COMELEC!after!the!winning!candidate!has!been!proclaimed.!(citing,Gallardo!vs.!Rimando,!187!SCRA!463;!Salvacion!
vs.!COMELEC,!170!SCRA!513;!Casimiro!vs.!COMELEC,!171!SCRA!468.)!This!rule,!however,!is!premised!on!an!assumption!
that!the!proclamation!is!no!proclamation!at!all!and!the!proclaimed!candidate's!assumption!of!office!cannot!deprive!
the!COMELEC!of!the!power!to!make!such!declaration!of!nullity.!(citing,Aguam!vs.!COMELEC,!23!SCRA!883;!Agbayani!
vs.!COMELEC,!186!SCRA!484.)!
The! Court! however! cautioned! that! such! power! to! annul! a! proclamation! must! "be! done! within! ten! (10)! days! following! the!
proclamation."! Inasmuch! as! Frivaldo's! petition! was! filed! only! six! (6)! days! after! Lee's! proclamation,! there! is! no! question! that! the!
Comelec!correctly!acquired!jurisdiction!over!the!same.!
The,Fourth,Issue:,Was,Lee's,Proclamation,Valid?!
Frivaldo!assails!the!validity!of!the!Lee!proclamation.!We!uphold!him!for!the!following!reasons:!
First.!To!paraphrase!this!Court!in!Labo,vs.!COMELEC,$60!"the!fact!remains!that!he!(Lee)!was!not!the!choice!of!the!sovereign!will,"!and!
in!Aquino!vs.!COMELEC,$61!Lee!is!"a!second!placer,!.!.!.!just!that,!a!second!placer."!
In! spite! of! this,! Lee! anchors! his! claim! to! the! governorship! on! the! pronouncement! of! this! Court! in! the! aforesaid! Labo$62!case,! as!
follows:!
The!rule!would!have!been!different!if!the!electorate!fully!aware!in!fact!and!in!law!of!a!candidate's!disqualification!so!
as!to!bring!such!awareness!within!the!realm!of!notoriety,!would!nonetheless!cast!their!votes!in!favor!of!the!ineligible!
candidate.! In! such! case,! the! electorate! may! be! said! to! have! waived! the! validity! and! efficacy! of! their! votes! by!
notoriously!misapplying!their!franchise!or!throwing!away!their!votes,!in!which!case,!the!eligible!candidate!obtaining!
the!next!higher!number!of!votes!may!be!deemed!elected.!
But!such!holding!is!qualified!by!the!next!paragraph,!thus:!
But! this! is! not! the! situation! obtaining! in! the! instant! dispute.! It! has! not! been! shown,! and! none! was! alleged,! that!
petitioner!Labo!was!notoriously!known!as!an!ineligible!candidate,!much!less!the!electorate!as!having!known!of!such!
fact.!On!the!contrary,!petitioner!Labo!was!even!allowed!by!no!less!than!the!Comelec!itself!in!its!resolution!dated!May!

10,! 1992! to! be! voted! for! the! office! of! the! city! Payor! as! its! resolution! dated! May! 9,! 1992! denying! due! course! to!
petitioner!Labo's!certificate!of!candidacy!had!not!yet!become!final!and!subject!to!the!final!outcome!of!this!case.!
The!lastDquoted!paragraph!in!Labo,!unfortunately!for!Lee,!is!the!ruling!appropriate!in!this!case!because!Frivaldo!was!in!1995!in!an!
identical!situation!as!Labo!was!in!1992!when!the!Comelec's!cancellation!of!his!certificate!of!candidacy!was!not!yet!final!on!election!
day! as! there! was! in! both! cases! a! pending! motion! for! reconsideration,! for! which! reason! Comelec! issued! an! (omnibus)! resolution!
declaring!that!Frivaldo!(like!Labo!in!1992)!and!several!others!can!still!be!voted!for!in!the!May!8,!1995!election,!as!in!fact,!he!was.!
Furthermore,!there!has!been!no!sufficient!evidence!presented!to!show!that!the!electorate!of!Sorsogon!was!"fully!aware!in!fact!and!
in! law"! of! Frivaldo's! alleged! disqualification! as! to! "bring! such! awareness! within! the! realm! of! notoriety;"! in! other! words,! that! the!
voters!intentionally!wasted!their!ballots!knowing!that,!in!spite!of!their!voting!for!him,!he!was!ineligible.!If!Labo,has!any!relevance!at!
all,! it! is! that! the! viceDgovernor! DD! and! not! Lee! DD! should! be! proD! claimed,! since! in! losing! the! election,! Lee! was,! to!
paraphrase!Labo,again,!"obviously!not!the!choice!of!the!people"!of!Sorsogon.!This!is!the!emphatic!teaching!of!Labo:!
The!rule,!therefore,!is:!the!ineligibility!of!a!candidate!receiving!majority!votes!does!not!entitle!the!eligible!candidate!
receiving! the! next! highest! number! of! votes! to! be! declared! elected.! A! minority! or! defeated! candidate! cannot! be!
deemed!elected!to!the!office.!
Second.!As!we!have!earlier!declared!Frivaldo!to!have!seasonably!reacquired!his!citizenship!and!inasmuch!as!he!obtained!the!highest!
number!of!votes!in!the!1995!elections,!he!DD!not!Lee!DD!should!be!proclaimed.!Hence,!Lee's!proclamation!was!patently!erroneous!and!
should!now!be!corrected.!
The,
Fifth,
Election,Code,Mandatory?!

Issue:,

Is,

Section,

78,

of,

the,

In! G.R.! No.! 120295,! Frivaldo! claims! that! the! assailed! Resolution! of! the! Comelec! (Second! Division)! dated! May! 1,! 1995! and! the!
confirmatory!en,banc!Resolution!of!May!11,!1995!disqualifying!him!for!want!of!citizenship!should!be!annulled!because!they!were!
rendered!beyond!the!fifteen!(15)!day!period!prescribed!by!Section!78,!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!which!reads!as!follows:!
Sec.!78.!Petition,to,deny,due,course,or,to,cancel,a,certificate,of,candidacy.!DD!A!verified!petition!seeking!to!deny!due!
course!or!to!cancel!a!certificate!of!candidacy!may!be!filed!by!any!person!exclusively!on!the!ground!that!any!material!
representation!contained!therein!as!required!under!Section!74!hereof!is!false.!The!petition!may!be!filed!at!any!time!

not!later!than!twentyDfive!days!from!the!time!of!the!filing!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy!and!shall!be!decided!after!
notice!and!hearing,!not,later,than,fifteen,days,before,the,election.!(Emphasis!supplied.)!
This!claim!is!now!moot!and!academic!inasmuch!as!these!resolutions!are!deemed!superseded!by!the!subsequent!ones!issued!by!the!
Commission!(First!Division)!on!December!19,!1995,!affirmed!en,banc$63$on!February!23,!1996;!which!both!upheld!his!election.!At!any!
rate,! it! is! obvious! that! Section! 78! is! merely! directory! as! Section! 6! of! R.A.! No.! 6646! authorizes! the! Commission! to! try! and! decide!
petitions!for!disqualifications!even!after!the!elections,!thus:!
Sec.!6.!Effect,of,Disqualification,Case.!DD!Any!candidate!who!has!been!declared!by!final!judgment!to!be!disqualified!
shall!not!be!voted!for,!and!the!votes!cast!for!him!shall!not!be!counted.!If,for,any,reason,a,candidate,is,not,declared,by,
final,judgment,before,an,election,to,be,disqualified,and,he,is,voted,for,and,receives,the,winning,number,of,votes,in,
such,election,,the,Court,or,Commission,shall,continue,with,the,trial,and,hearing,of,the,action,,inquiry,or,protest,and,
upon, motion, of, the, complainant, or, any, intervenor,, may, during, the, pendency, thereof, order, the, suspension, of, the,
proclamation,of,such,candidate,whenever,the,evidence,of,his,guilt,is,strong.!(emphasis!supplied)!
Refutation,
Mr.,Justice,Davide's,Dissent!

of,

In!his!dissenting!opinion,!the!esteemed!Mr.!Justice!Hilario!G.!Davide,!Jr.!argues!that!President!Aquino's!memorandum!dated!March!
27,!1987!should!be!viewed!as!a!suspension!(not!a!repeal,!as!urged!by!Lee)!of!P.D.!725.!But!whether!it!decrees!a!suspension!or!a!
repeal! is! a! purely! academic! distinction! because! the! said! issuance! is! not! a! statute! that! can! amend! or! abrogate! an! existing! law.!
The!existence!and!subsistence!of!P.D.!725!were!recognized!in!the!first!Frivaldo!case;$64!viz.,!"(u)nder!CA!No.!63!as!amended!by!CA!
No.!473!and!P.D.!No.!725,!Philippine!citizenship!maybe!reacquired!by!.!.!.!repatriation".!He!also!contends!that!by!allowing!Frivaldo!to!
register! and! to! remain! as! a! registered! voter,! the! Comelec! and! in! effect! this! Court! abetted! a! "mockery"! of! our! two! previous!
judgments!declaring!him!a!nonDcitizen.!We!do!not!see!such!abetting!or!mockery.!The!retroactivity!of!his!repatriation,!as!discussed!
earlier,!legally!cured!whatever!defects!there!may!have!been!in!his!registration!as!a!voter!for!the!purpose!of!the!1995!elections.!Such!
retroactivity!did!not!change!his!disqualifications!in!1988!and!1992,!which!were!the!subjects!of!such!previous!rulings.!
Mr.! Justice! Davide! also! believes! that!Quo, Warranto!is! not! the! sole! remedy! to! question! the! ineligibility! of! a! candidate,! citing! the!
Comelec's!authority!under!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!allowing!the!denial!of!a!certificate!of!candidacy!on!the!ground!of!
a!false!material!representation!therein!as!required!by!Section!74.!Citing!Loong,!he!then!states!his!disagreement!with!our!holding!that!
Section!78!is!merely!directory.!We!really!have!no!quarrel.!Our!point!is!that!Frivaldo!was!in!error!in!his!claim!in!G.R.!No.!120295!that!

the! Comelec! Resolutions! promulgated! on! May! 1,! 1995! and! May! 11,! 1995! were! invalid! because! they! were! issued! "not! later! than!
fifteen!days!before!the!election"!as!prescribed!by!Section!78.!In!dismissing!the!petition!in!G.R.!No.!120295,!we!hold!that!the!Comelec!
did!not!commit!grave!abuse!of!discretion!because!"Section!6!of!R.A.!6646!authorizes!the!Comelec!to!try!and!decide!disqualifications!
even!after!the!elections."!In!spite!of!his!disagreement!with!us!on!this!point,!i.e.,!that!Section!78!"is!merely!directory",!we!note!that!
just!like!us,!Mr.!Justice!Davide!nonetheless!votes!to!"DISMISS!G.R.!No.!120295".!One!other!point.!Loong,!as!quoted!in!the!dissent,!
teaches!that!a!petition!to!deny!due!course!under!Section!78!must!be,filed,within!the!25Pday,period!prescribed!therein.!The!present!
case!however!deals!with!the!period!during!which!the!Comelec!may!decide!such!petition.!And!we!hold!that!it!may!be!decided!even!
after! thefifteen, day,period! mentioned! in! Section! 78.! Here,! we! rule! that! a! decision,promulgated!by! the! Comelec! even! after! the!
elections!is!valid!but!Loong!held!that!a!petition,filed!beyond!the!25Dday!period!is!out!of!time.!There!is!no!inconsistency!nor!conflict.!
Mr.!Justice!Davide!also!disagrees!with!the!Court's!holding!that,!given!the!unique!factual!circumstances!of!Frivaldo,!repatriation!may!
be!given!retroactive!effect.!He!argues!that!such!retroactivity!"dilutes"!our!holding!in!the!first!Frivaldo!case.!But!the!first!(and!even!
the!second!Frivaldo)!decision!did!not!directly!involve!repatriation!as!a!mode!of!acquiring!citizenship.!If!we!may!repeat,!there!is!no!
question! that! Frivaldo! was! not! a! Filipino! for! purposes! of! determining! his! qualifications! in! the! 1988! and! 1992! elections.! That! is!
settled.!But!his!supervening!repatriation!has!changed!his!political!status!DD!not!in!1988!or!1992,!but!only!in!the!1995!elections.!
Our! learned! colleague! also! disputes! our! holding! that! Frivaldo! was! stateless! prior! to! his! repatriation,! saying! that! "informal!
renunciation! or! abandonment! is! not! a! ground! to! lose! American! citizenship".! Since! our! courts! are! charged! only! with! the! duty! of!
determining!who!are!Philippine!nationals,!we!cannot!rule!on!the!legal!question!of!who!are!or!who!are!not!Americans.!It!is!basic!in!
international!law!that!a!State!determines!ONLY!those!who!are!its!own!citizens!DD!not!who!are!the!citizens!of!other!countries.$65!The!
issue! here! is:! the! Comelec! made! a! finding! of! fact! that! Frivaldo! was! stateless! and! such! finding! has! not! been! shown! by! Lee! to! be!
arbitrary!or!whimsical.!Thus,!following!settled!case!law,!such!finding!is!binding!and!final.!
The! dissenting! opinion! also! submits! that! Lee! who! lost! by! chasmic! margins! to! Frivaldo! in! all! three! previous! elections,! should! be!
declared!winner!because!"Frivaldo's!ineligibility!for!being!an!American!was!publicly!known".!First,!there!is!absolutely!no!empirical!
evidence!for!such!"public"!knowledge.!Second,!even!if!there!is,!such!knowledge!can!be!true,post,facto!only!of!the!last!two!previous!
elections.!Third,!even!the!Comelec!and!now!this!Court!were/are!still!deliberating!on!his!nationality!before,!during!and!after!the!1995!
elections.!How!then!can!there!be!such!"public"!knowledge?!
Mr.!Justice!Davide!submits!that!Section!39!of!the!Local!Government!Code!refers!to!the!qualifications!of!electivelocal!officials,!i.e.,!
candidates,! and! not!elected!officials,! and! that! the! citizenship! qualification! [under! par.! (a)! of! that! section]! must! be! possessed! by!
candidates,!not!merely!at!the!commencement!of!the!term,!but!by!election!day!at!the!latest.!We!see!it!differently.!Section!39,!par.!(a)!

thereof!speaks!of!"elective!local!official"!while!par.!(b)!to!(f)!refer!to!"candidates".!If!the!qualifications!under!par.!(a)!were!intended!
to!apply!to!"candidates"!and!not!elected!officials,!the!legislature!would!have!said!so,!instead!of!differentiating!par.!(a)!from!the!rest!
of!the!paragraphs.!Secondly,!if!Congress!had!meant!that!the!citizenship!qualification!should!be!possessed!at!election!day!or!prior!
thereto,!it!would!have!specifically!stated!such!detail,!the!same!way!it!did!in!pars.!(b)!to!(f)!far!other!qualifications!of!candidates!for!
governor,!mayor,!etc.!
Mr.!Justice!Davide!also!questions!the!giving!of!retroactive!effect!to!Frivaldo's!repatriation!on!the!ground,!among!others,!that!the!law!
specifically!provides!that!it!is!only!after!taking!the!oath!of!allegiance!that!applicants!shall!be!deemed!to!have!reacquired!Philippine!
citizenship.! We! do! not! question! what! the! provision! states.! We! hold! however! that! the! provision! should! be! understood! thus:!that,
after, taking, the, oath, of, allegiance, the, applicant, is, deemed, to, have, reacquired, Philippine, citizenship,, which, reacquisition, (or,
repatriation),is,deemed,for,all,purposes,and,intents,to,have,retroacted,to,the,date,of,his,application,therefor.!
In! any! event,! our! "so! too"! argument! regarding! the! literal! meaning! of! the! word! "elective"! in! reference! to! Section! 39! of! the! Local!
Authority!Code,!as!well!as!regarding!Mr.!Justice!Davide's!thesis!that!the!very!wordings!of!P.D.!725!suggest!nonDretroactivity,!were!
already!taken!up!rather!extensively!earlier!in!this!Decision.!
Mr.!Justice!Davide!caps!his!paper!with!a!clarion!call:!"This!Court!must!be!the!first!to!uphold!the!Rule!of!Law."!We!agree!DD!we!must!all!
follow!the!rule!of!law.!But!that!is!NOT!the!issue!here.!The!issue!is!how,should!the!law!be!interpreted!and!applied!in!this!case!so!it!can!
be!followed,!so!it!can!rule!!
At!balance,!the!question!really!boils!down!to!a!choice!of!philosophy!and!perception!of!how!to!interpret!and!apply!laws!relating!to!
elections:!literal!or!liberal;!the!letter!or!the!spirit,!the!naked!provision!or!its!ultimate!purpose;!legal!syllogism!or!substantial!justice;!in!
isolation!or!in!the!context!of!social!conditions;!harshly!against!or!gently!in!favor!of!the!voters'!obvious!choice.!In!applying!election!
laws,!it!would!be!far!better!to!err!in!favor!of!popular!sovereignty!than!to!be!right!in!complex!but!little!understood!legalisms.!Indeed,!
to! inflict! a! thrice! rejected! candidate! upon! the! electorate! of! Sorsogon! would! constitute! unmitigated! judicial! tyranny! and! an!
unacceptable!assault!upon!this!Court's!conscience.!
E,P,I,L,O,G,U,E,
In!sum,!we!rule!that!the!citizenship!requirement!in!the!Local!Government!Code!is!to!be!possessed!by!an!elective!official!at!the!latest!
as!of!the!time!he!is!proclaimed!and!at!the!start!of!the!term!of!office!to!which!he!has!been!elected.!We!further!hold!P.D.!No.!725!to!
be! in! full! force! and! effect! up! to! the! present,! not! having! been! suspended! or! repealed! expressly! nor! impliedly! at! any! time,! and!

Frivaldo's! repatriation! by! virtue! thereof! to! have! been! properly! granted! and! thus! valid! and! effective.! Moreover,! by! reason! of! the!
remedial!or!curative!nature!of!the!law!granting!him!a!new!right!to!resume!his!political!status!and!the!legislative!intent!behind!it,!as!
well!as!his!unique!situation!of!having!been!forced!to!give!up!his!citizenship!and!political!aspiration!as!his!means!of!escaping!a!regime!
he!abhorred,!his!repatriation!is!to!be!given!retroactive!effect!as!of!the!date!of!his!application!therefor,!during!the!pendency!of!which!
he!was!stateless,!he!having!given!up!his!U.S.!nationality.!Thus,!in!contemplation!of!law,!he!possessed!the!vital!requirement!of!Filipino!
citizenship!as!of!the!start!of!the!term!of!office!of!governor,!and!should!have!been!proclaimed!instead!of!Lee.!Furthermore,!since!his!
reacquisition!of!citizenship!retroacted!to!August!17,!1994,!his!registration!as!a!voter!of!Sorsogon!is!deemed!to!have!been!validated!
as!of!said!date!as!well.!The!foregoing,!of!course,!are!precisely!consistent!with!our!holding!that!lack!of!the!citizenship!requirement!is!
not!a!continuing!disability!or!disqualification!to!run!for!and!hold!public!office.!And!once!again,!we!emphasize!herein!our!previous!
rulings!recognizing!the!Comelec's!authority!and!jurisdiction!to!hear!and!decide!petitions!for!annulment!of!proclamations.!
This!Court!has!time!and!again!liberally!and!equitably!construed!the!electoral!laws!of!our!country!to!give!fullest!effect!to!the!manifest!
will!of!our!people,$66!for!in!case!of!doubt,!political!laws!must!be!interpreted!to!give!life!and!spirit!to!the!popular!mandate!freely!
expressed! through! the! ballot.! Otherwise! stated,! legal! niceties! and! technicalities! cannot! stand! in! the! way! of! the! sovereign! will.!
Consistently,!we!have!held:!
.!.!.!(L)aws!governing!election!contests!must!be!liberally!construed!to!the!end!that!the!will!of!the!people!in!the!choice!
of!public!officials!may!not!be!defeated!by!mere!technical!objections!(citations!omitted).$67!
The!law!and!the!courts!must!accord!Frivaldo!every!possible!protection,!defense!and!refuge,!in!deference!to!the!popular!will.!Indeed,!
this! Court! has! repeatedly! stressed! the! importance! of! giving! effect! to! the! sovereign! will! in! order! to! ensure! the! survival! of! our!
democracy.!In!any!action!involving!the!possibility!of!a!reversal!of!the!popular!electoral!choice,!this!Court!must!exert!utmost!effort!to!
resolve!the!issues!in!a!manner!that!would!give!effect!to!the!will!of!the!majority,!for!it!is!merely!sound!public!policy!to!cause!elective!
offices!to!be!filled!by!those!who!are!the!choice!of!the!majority.!To!successfully!challenge!a!winning!candidate's!qualifications,!the!
petitioner! must! clearly! demonstrate! that! the! ineligibility! is! so! patently! antagonistic$68!to! constitutional! and! legal! principles! that!
overriding!such!ineligibility!and!thereby!giving!effect!to!the!apparent!will!of!the!people,!would!ultimately!create!greater!prejudice!to!
the! very! democratic! institutions! and! juristic! traditions! that! our! Constitution! and! laws! so! zealously! protect! and! promote.! In! this!
undertaking,!Lee!has!miserably!failed.!
In!Frivaldo's!case.!it!would!have!been!technically!easy!to!find!fault!with!his!cause.!The!Court!could!have!refused!to!grant!retroactivity!
to!the!effects!of!his!repatriation!and!hold!him!still!ineligible!due!to!his!failure!to!show!his!citizenship!at!the!time!he!registered!as!a!
voter!before!the!1995!elections.!Or,!it!could!have!disputed!the!factual!findings!of!the!Comelec!that!he!was!stateless!at!the!time!of!

repatriation!and!thus!hold!his!consequent!dual!citizenship!as!a!disqualification!"from!running!for!any!elective!local!position."!But!the!
real! essence! of! justice! does! not! emanate! from! quibblings! over! patchwork! legal! technicality.! It! proceeds! from! the! spirit's! gut!
consciousness! of! the! dynamic! role! of! law! as! a! brick! in! the! ultimate! development! of! the! social! edifice.! Thus,! the! Court! struggled!
against! and! eschewed! the! easy,! legalistic,! technical! and! sometimes! harsh! anachronisms! of! the! law! in! order! to! evoke! substantial!
justice!in!the!larger!social!context!consistent!with!Frivaldo's!unique!situation!approximating!venerability!in!Philippine!political!life.!
Concededly,! he! sought! American! citizenship! only! to! escape! the! clutches! of! the! dictatorship.! At! this! stage,! we! cannot! seriously!
entertain!any!doubt!about!his!loyalty!and!dedication!to!this!country.!At!the!first!opportunity,!he!returned!to!this!land,!and!sought!to!
serve!his!people!once!more.!The!people!of!Sorsogon!overwhelmingly!voted!for!him!three!times.!He!took!an!oath!of!allegiance!to!this!
Republic! every! time! he! filed! his! certificate! of! candidacy! and! during! his! failed! naturalization! bid.! And! let! it! not! be! overlooked,! his!
demonstrated! tenacity! and! sheer! determination! to! reDassume! his! nationality! of! birth! despite! several! legal! setDbacks! speak! more!
loudly,! in! spirit,! in! fact! and! in! truth! than! any! legal! technicality,! of! his! consuming! intention! and! burning! desire! to! reDembrace! his!
native!Philippines!even!now!at!the!ripe!old!age!of!81!years.!Such!loyalty!to!and!love!of!country!as!well!as!nobility!of!purpose!cannot!
be!lost!on!this!Court!of!justice!and!equity.!Mortals!of!lesser!mettle!would!have!given!up.!After!all,!Frivaldo!was!assured!of!a!life!of!
ease!and!plenty!as!a!citizen!of!the!most!powerful!country!in!the!world.!But!he!opted,!nay,!singleDmindedly!insisted!on!returning!to!
and!serving!once!more!his!struggling!but!beloved!land!of!birth.!He!therefore!deserves!every!liberal!interpretation!of!the!law!which!
can! be! applied! in! his! favor.! And! in! the! final! analysis,! over! and! above! Frivaldo! himself,! the! indomitable! people! of! Sorsogon! most!
certainly!deserve!to!be!governed!by!a!leader!of!their!overwhelming!choice.!
WHEREFORE,!in!consideration!of!the!foregoing:!
(1)!The!petition!in!G.R.!No.!123755!is!hereby!DISMISSED.!The!assailed!Resolutions!of!the!respondent!Commission!are!AFFIRMED.!
(2)!The!petition!in!G.R.!No.!120295!is!also!DISMISSED!for!being!moot!and!academic.!In!any!event,!it!has!no!merit.!
No!costs.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
G.R.$No.$135083$May$26,$1999$
ERNESTO$
S.$
vs.!
EDUARDO$BARRIOS$MANZANO$and$the$COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS,$respondents.!

MERCADO,$petitioner,!!

MENDOZA,$J.:$
Petitioner!Ernesto!S.!Mercado!and!private!respondent!Eduardo!B.!Manzano!were!candidates!for!vice!mayor!of!the!City!of!Makati!in!
the!May!11,!1998!elections.!The!other!one!was!Gabriel!V.!Daza!III.!The!results!of!the!election!were!as!follows:!
Eduardo!B.!Manzano!103,853!
Ernesto!S.!Mercado!100,894!
Gabriel!V.!Daza!III!54,275$1!
The!proclamation!of!private!respondent!was!suspended!in!view!of!a!pending!petition!for!disqualification!filed!by!a!certain!Ernesto!
Mamaril!who!alleged!that!private!respondent!was!not!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines!but!of!the!United!States.!
In! its! resolution,! dated! May! 7,! 1998,$2$the! Second! Division! of! the! COMELEC! granted! the! petition! of! Mamaril! and! ordered! the!
cancellation!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy!of!private!respondent!on!the!ground!that!he!is!a!dual!citizen!and,!under!40(d)!of!the!
Local! Government! Code,! persons! with! dual! citizenship! are! disqualified! from! running! for! any! elective! position.! The! COMELEC's!
Second!Division!said:!
What!is!presented!before!the!Commission!is!a!petition!for!disqualification!of!Eduardo!Barrios!Manzano!as!candidate!
for!the!office!of!ViceDMayor!of!Makati!City!in!the!May!11,!1998!elections.!The!petition!is!based!on!the!ground!that!the!
respondent!is!an!American!citizen!based!on!the!record!of!the!Bureau!of!Immigration!and!misrepresented!himself!as!a!
naturalDborn!Filipino!citizen.!
In!his!answer!to!the!petition!filed!on!April!27,!1998,!the!respondent!admitted!that!he!is!registered!as!a!foreigner!with!
the!Bureau!of!Immigration!under!Alien!Certificate!of!Registration!No.!BD31632!and!alleged!that!he!is!a!Filipino!citizen!
because! he! was! born! in! 1955! of! a! Filipino! father! and! a! Filipino! mother.! He! was! born! in! the! United! States,! San!
Francisco,!California,!September!14,!1955,!and!is!considered!in!American!citizen!under!US!Laws.!But!notwithstanding!
his!registration!as!an!American!citizen,!he!did!not!lose!his!Filipino!citizenship.!
Judging! from! the! foregoing! facts,! it! would! appear! that! respondent! Manzano! is! born! a! Filipino! and! a! US! citizen.! In!
other!words,!he!holds!dual!citizenship.!

The! question! presented! is! whether! under! our! laws,! he! is! disqualified! from! the! position! for! which! he! filed! his!
certificate!of!candidacy.!Is!he!eligible!for!the!office!he!seeks!to!be!elected?!
Under!Section!40(d)!of!the!Local!Government!Code,!those!holding!dual!citizenship!are!disqualified!from!running!for!
any!elective!local!position.!
WHEREFORE,!the!Commission!hereby!declares!the!respondent!Eduardo!Barrios!Manzano!DISQUALIFIED!as!candidate!
for!ViceDMayor!of!Makati!City.!
On!May!8,!1998,!private!respondent!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration.$3$The!motion!remained!pending!even!until!after!the!election!
held!on!May!11,!1998.!
Accordingly,!pursuant!to!Omnibus!Resolution!No.!3044,!dated!May!10,!1998,!of!the!COMELEC,!the!board!of!canvassers!tabulated!the!
votes!cast!for!vice!mayor!of!Makati!City!but!suspended!the!proclamation!of!the!winner.!
On! May! 19,! 1998,! petitioner! sought! to! intervene! in! the! case! for! disqualification.$4$Petitioner's! motion! was! opposed! by! private!
respondent.!
The!motion!was!not!resolved.!Instead,!on!August!31,!1998,!the!COMELEC!en,banc!rendered!its!resolution.!Voting!4!to!1,!with!one!
commissioner!abstaining,!the!COMELEC!en,banc,reversed!the!ruling!of!its!Second!Division!and!declared!private!respondent!qualified!
to! run! for! vice! mayor! of! the! City! of! Makati! in! the! May! 11,! 1998! elections.$5The! pertinent! portions! of! the! resolution! of! the!
COMELEC!en,banc,read:!
As! aforesaid,! respondent! Eduardo! Barrios! Manzano! was! born! in! San! Francisco,! California,! U.S.A.! He! acquired! US!
citizenship!by!operation!of!the!United!States!Constitution!and!laws!under!the!principle!ofjus,soli.!
He!was!also!a!natural!born!Filipino!citizen!by!operation!of!the!1935!Philippine!Constitution,!as!his!father!and!mother!
were! Filipinos! at! the! time! of! his! birth.! At! the! age! of! six! (6),! his! parents! brought! him! to! the! Philippines! using! an!
American! passport! as! travel! document.! His! parents! also! registered! him! as! an! alien! with! the! Philippine! Bureau! of!
Immigration.! He! was! issued! an! alien! certificate! of! registration.! This,! however,! did! not! result! in! the! loss! of! his!
Philippine! citizenship,! as! he! did! not! renounce! Philippine! citizenship! and! did! not! take! an! oath! of! allegiance! to! the!
United!States.!

It!is!an!undisputed!fact!that!when!respondent!attained!the!age!of!majority,!he!registered!himself!as!a!voter,!and!voted!
in!the!elections!of!1992,!1995!and!1998,!which!effectively!renounced!his!US!citizenship!under!American!law.!Under!
Philippine!law,!he!no!longer!had!U.S.!citizenship.!
At!the!time!of!the!May!11,!1998!elections,!the!resolution!of!the!Second!Division,!adopted!on!May!7,!1998,!was!not!yet!
final.! Respondent! Manzano! obtained! the! highest! number! of! votes! among! the! candidates! for! viceDmayor! of! Makati!
City,!garnering!one!hundred!three!thousand!eight!hundred!fifty!three!(103,853)!votes!over!his!closest!rival,!Ernesto!S.!
Mercado,! who! obtained! one! hundred! thousand! eight! hundred! ninety! four! (100,894)! votes,! or! a! margin! of! two!
thousand! nine! hundred! fifty! nine! (2,959)! votes.! Gabriel! Daza! III! obtained! third! place! with! fifty! four! thousand! two!
hundred!seventy!five!(54,275)!votes.!In!applying!election!laws,!it!would!be!far!better!to!err!in!favor!of!the!popular!
choice!than!be!embroiled!in!complex!legal!issues!involving!private!international!law!which!may!well!be!settled!before!
the!highest!court!(Cf.!Frivaldo!vs.!Commission!on!Elections,!257!SCRA!727).!
WHEREFORE,! the! Commission!en, banc,hereby! REVERSES! the! resolution! of! the! Second! Division,! adopted! on! May! 7,!
1998,!ordering!the!cancellation!of!the!respondent's!certificate!of!candidacy.!
We!declare!respondent!Eduardo!Luis!Barrios!Manzano!to!be!QUALIFIED!as!a!candidate!for!the!position!of!viceDmayor!
of!Makati!City!in!the!May!11,!1998,!elections.!
ACCORDINGLY,! the! Commission! directs! the! Makati! City! Board! of! Canvassers,! upon! proper! notice! to! the! parties,! to!
reconvene! and! proclaim! the! respondent! Eduardo! Luis! Barrios! Manzano! as! the! winning! candidate! for! viceDmayor! of!
Makati!City.!
Pursuant!to!the!resolution!of!the!COMELEC!en,banc,!the!board!of!canvassers,!on!the!evening!of!August!31,!1998,!proclaimed!private!
respondent!as!vice!mayor!of!the!City!of!Makati.!
This! is! a! petition! for!certiorari!seeking! to! set! aside! the! aforesaid! resolution! of! the! COMELEC!en, banc,and! to! declare! private!
respondent!disqualified!to!hold!the!office!of!vice!mayor!of!Makati!City.!Petitioner!contends!that!!
[T]he!COMELEC!en,banc!ERRED!in!holding!that:!
A.!Under!Philippine!law,!Manzano!was!no!longer!a!U.S.!citizen!when!he:!

1.!He!renounced!his!U.S.!citizenship!when!he!attained!the!age!of!majority!when!he!was!already!37!years!old;!
and,!
2.!He!renounced!his!U.S.!citizenship!when!he!(merely)!registered!himself!as!a!voter!and!voted!in!the!elections!of!
1992,!1995!and!1998.!
B.!Manzano!is!qualified!to!run!for!and!or!hold!the!elective!office!of!ViceDMayor!of!the!City!of!Makati;!
C.!At!the!time!of!the!May!11,!1998!elections,!the!resolution!of!the!Second!Division!adopted!on!7!May!1998!was!not!
yet!final!so!that,!effectively,!petitioner!may!not!be!declared!the!winner!even!assuming!that!Manzano!is!disqualified!to!
run!for!and!hold!the!elective!office!of!ViceDMayor!of!the!City!of!Makati.!
We! first! consider! the! threshold! procedural! issue! raised! by! private! respondent! Manzano! ! whether! petitioner! Mercado! his!
personality!to!bring!this!suit!considering!that!he!was!not!an!original!party!in!the!case!for!disqualification!filed!by!Ernesto!Mamaril!nor!
was!petitioner's!motion!for!leave!to!intervene!granted.!
I.!PETITIONER'S!RIGHT!TO!BRING!THIS!SUIT!
Private!respondent!cites!the!following!provisions!of!Rule!8!of!the!Rules!of!Procedure!of!the!COMELEC!in!support!of!his!claim!that!
petitioner!has!no!right!to!intervene!and,!therefore,!cannot!bring!this!suit!to!set!aside!the!ruling!denying!his!motion!for!intervention:!
Sec.! 1.! When! proper! and! when! may! be! permitted! to! intervene.! ! Any! person! allowed! to! initiate! an! action! or!
proceeding! may,! before! or! during! the! trial! of! an! action! or! proceeding,! be! permitted! by! the! Commission,! in! its!
discretion!to!intervene!in!such!action!or!proceeding,!if!he!has!legal!interest!in!the!matter!in!litigation,!or!in!the!success!
of! either! of! the! parties,! or! an! interest! against! both,! or! when! he! is! so! situated! as! to! be! adversely! affected! by! such!
action!or!proceeding.!
xxx!xxx!xxx!
Sec.! 3.! Discretion! of! Commission.! ! In! allowing! or! disallowing! a! motion! for! intervention,! the! Commission! or! the!
Division,!in!the!exercise!of!its!discretion,!shall!consider!whether!or!not!the!intervention!will!unduly!delay!or!prejudice!

the!adjudication!of!the!rights!of!the!original!parties!and!whether!or!not!the!intervenor's!rights!may!be!fully!protected!
in!a!separate!action!or!proceeding.!
Private! respondent! argues! that! petitioner! has! neither! legal! interest! in! the! matter! in! litigation! nor! an! interest! to! protect!
because! he! is! "a! defeated! candidate! for! the! viceDmayoralty! post! of! Makati! City! [who]! cannot! be! proclaimed! as! the! ViceD
Mayor!of!Makati!City!if!the!private!respondent!be!ultimately!disqualified!by!final!and!executory!judgment."!
The! flaw! in! this! argument! is! it! assumes! that,! at! the! time! petitioner! sought! to! intervene! in! the! proceedings! before! the! COMELEC,!
there!had!already!been!a!proclamation!of!the!results!of!the!election!for!the!vice!mayoralty!contest!for!Makati!City,!on!the!basis!of!
which!petitioner!came!out!only!second!to!private!respondent.!The!fact,!however,!is!that!there!had!been!no!proclamation!at!that!
time.! Certainly,! petitioner! had,! and! still! has,! an! interest! in! ousting! private! respondent! from! the! race! at! the! time! he! sought! to!
intervene.!The!rule!in!Labo,v.,COMELEC,$6!reiterated!in!several!cases,$7$only!applies!to!cases!in!which!the!election!of!the!respondent!
is!contested,!and!the!question!is!whether!one!who!placed!second!to!the!disqualified!candidate!may!be!declared!the!winner.!In!the!
present!case,!at!the!time!petitioner!filed!a!"Motion!for!Leave!to!File!Intervention"!on!May!20,!1998,!there!had!been!no!proclamation!
of!the!winner,!and!petitioner's!purpose!was!precisely!to!have!private!respondent!disqualified!"from!running!for![an]!elective!local!
position"!under!40(d)!of!R.A.!No.!7160.!If!Ernesto!Mamaril!(who!originally!instituted!the!disqualification!proceedings),!a!registered!
voter!of!Makati!City,!was!competent!to!bring!the!action,!so!was!petitioner!since!the!latter!was!a!rival!candidate!for!vice!mayor!of!
Makati!City.!
Nor!is!petitioner's!interest!in!the!matter!in!litigation!any!less!because!he!filed!a!motion!for!intervention!only!on!May!20,!1998,!after!
private! respondent! had! been! shown! to! have! garnered! the! highest! number! of! votes! among! the! candidates! for! vice! mayor.! That!
petitioner!had!a!right!to!intervene!at!that!stage!of!the!proceedings!for!the!disqualification!against!private!respondent!is!clear!from!
6!of!R.A.!No.!6646,!otherwise!known!as!the!Electoral!Reform!Law!of!1987,!which!provides:!
Any!candidate!who!his!been!declared!by!final!judgment!to!be!disqualified!shall!not!be!voted!for,!and!the!votes!cast!for!
him! shall! not! be! counted.! If! for! any! reason! a! candidate! is! not! declared! by! final! judgment! before! an! election! to! be!
disqualified!and!he!is!voted!for!and!receives!the!winning!number!of!votes!in!such!election,!the!Court!or!Commission!
shall! continue! with! the! trial! and! hearing! of! action,! inquiry,! or! protest! and,! upon! motion! of! the! complainant! or!
any!intervenor,! may! during! the! pendency! thereof! order! the! suspension! of! the! proclamation! of! such! candidate!
whenever!the!evidence!of!guilt!is!strong.!

Under!this!provision,!intervention!may!be!allowed!in!proceedings!for!disqualification!even!after!election!if!there!has!yet!been!no!
final!judgment!rendered.!
The! failure! of! the! COMELEC!en, banc,to! resolve! petitioner's! motion! for! intervention! was! tantamount! to! a! denial! of! the! motion,!
justifying!petitioner!in!filing!the!instant!petition!for!certiorari.!As!the!COMELEC!en,banc,instead!decided!the!merits!of!the!case,!the!
present!petition!properly!deals!not!only!with!the!denial!of!petitioner's!motion!for!intervention!but!also!with!the!substantive!issues!
respecting!private!respondent's!alleged!disqualification!on!the!ground!of!dual!citizenship.!
This!brings!us!to!the!next!question,!namely,!whether!private!respondent!Manzano!possesses!dual!citizenship!and,!if!so,!whether!he!
is!disqualified!from!being!a!candidate!for!vice!mayor!of!Makati!City.!
II.!DUAL!CITIZENSHIP!AS!A!GROUND!FOR!DISQUALIFICATION!
The! disqualification! of! private! respondent! Manzano! is! being! sought! under! 40! of! the! Local! Government! Code! of! 1991! (R.A.! No.!
7160),!which!declares!as!"disqualified!from!running!for!any!elective!local!position:!.!.!.!(d)!Those!with!dual!citizenship."!This!provision!
is!incorporated!in!the!Charter!of!the!City!of!Makati.!8!
Invoking! the! maxim!dura, lex, sed, lex,! petitioner,! as! well! as! the! Solicitor! General,! who! sides! with! him! in! this! case,! contends! that!
through!40(d)!of!the!Local!Government!Code,!Congress!has!"command[ed]!in!explicit!terms!the!ineligibility!of!persons!possessing!
dual!allegiance!to!hold!local!elective!office."!
To!begin!with,!dual!citizenship!is!different!from!dual!allegiance.!The!former!arises!when,!as!a!result!of!the!concurrent!application!of!
the!different!laws!of!two!or!more!states,!a!person!is!simultaneously!considered!a!national!by!the!said!states.$9$For!instance,!such!a!
situation!may!arise!when!a!person!whose!parents!are!citizens!of!a!state!which!adheres!to!the!principle!of,jus,sanguinis!is!born!in!a!
state! which! follows! the! doctrine! of,jus, soli.! Such! a! person,ipso, facto!and! without! any! voluntary! act! on! his! part,! is! concurrently!
considered! a! citizen! of! both! states.! Considering! the! citizenship! clause! (Art.! IV)! of! our! Constitution,! it! is! possible! for! the! following!
classes!of!citizens!of!the!Philippines!to!possess!dual!citizenship:!
(1)!Those!born!of!Filipino!fathers!and/or!mothers!in!foreign!countries!which!follow!the!principle!of,jus,soli;!
(2)! Those! born! in! the! Philippines! of! Filipino! mothers! and! alien! fathers! if! by! the! laws! of! their! father's'! country! such!
children!are!citizens!of!that!country;!

(3)!Those!who!marry!aliens!if!by!the!laws!of!the!latter's!country!the!former!are!considered!citizens,!unless!by!their!act!
or!omission!they!are!deemed!to!have!renounced!Philippine!citizenship.!
There! may! be! other! situations! in! which! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines! may,! without! performing! any! act,! be! also! a! citizen! of! another!
state;!but!the!above!cases!are!clearly!possible!given!the!constitutional!provisions!on!citizenship.!
Dual!allegiance,!on!the!other!hand,!refers!to!the!situation!in!which!a!person!simultaneously!owes,!by!some!positive!act,!loyalty!to!
two!or!more!states.!While!dual!citizenship!is!involuntary,!dual!allegiance!is!the!result!of!an!individual's!volition.!
With! respect! to! dual! allegiance,! Article! IV,! 5! of! the! Constitution! provides:! "Dual! allegiance! of! citizens! is! inimical! to! the! national!
interest!and!shall!be!dealt!with!by!law."!This!provision!was!included!in!the!1987!Constitution!at!the!instance!of!Commissioner!Blas!F.!
Ople!who!explained!its!necessity!as!follows:!10!
.!.!.!I!want!to!draw!attention!to!the!fact!that!dual!allegiance!is!not!dual!citizenship.!I!have!circulated!a!memorandum!to!
the!Bernas!Committee!according!to!which!a!dual!allegiance!!and!I!reiterate!a!dual!allegiance!!is!larger!and!more!
threatening! than! that! of! mere! double! citizenship! which! is! seldom! intentional! and,! perhaps,! never! insidious.! That! is!
often! a! function! of! the! accident! of! mixed! marriages! or! of! birth! on! foreign! soil.! And! so,! I! do! not! question! double!
citizenship!at!all.!
What!we!would!like!the!Committee!to!consider!is!to!take!constitutional!cognizance!of!the!problem!of!dual!allegiance.!
For!example,!we!all!know!what!happens!in!the!triennial!elections!of!the!Federation!of!FilipinoDChinese!Chambers!of!
Commerce! which! consists! of! about! 600! chapters! all! over! the! country.! There! is! a! Peking! ticket,! as! well! as! a! Taipei!
ticket.!Not!widely!known!is!the!fact!chat!the!FilipinoDChinese!community!is!represented!in!the!Legislative!Yuan!of!the!
Republic!of!China!in!Taiwan.!And!until!recently,!sponsor!might!recall,!in!Mainland!China!in!the!People's!Republic!of!
China,!they!have!the!Associated!Legislative!Council!for!overseas!Chinese!wherein!all!of!Southeast!Asia!including!some!
European! and! Latin! countries! were! represented,! which! was! dissolved! after! several! years! because! of! diplomatic!
friction.!At!that!time,!the!FilipinoDChinese!were!also!represented!in!that!Overseas!Council.!
When!I!speak!of!double!allegiance,!therefore,!I!speak!of!this!unsettled!kind!of!allegiance!of!Filipinos,!of!citizens!who!
are! already! Filipinos! but! who,! by! their! acts,! may! be! said! to! be! bound! by! a! second! allegiance,! either! to! Peking! or!
Taiwan.!I!also!took!close!note!of!the!concern!expressed!by!some!Commissioners!yesterday,!including!Commissioner!

Villacorta,!who!were!concerned!about!the!lack!of!guarantees!of!thorough!assimilation,!and!especially!Commissioner!
Concepcion!who!has!always!been!worried!about!minority!claims!on!our!natural!resources.!
Dull!allegiance!can!actually!siphon!scarce!national!capital!to!Taiwan,!Singapore,!China!or!Malaysia,!and!this!is!already!
happening.!Some!of!the!great!commercial!places!in!downtown!Taipei!are!FilipinoDowned,!owned!by!FilipinoDChinese!
!it!is!of!common!knowledge!in!Manila.!It!can!mean!a!tragic!capital!outflow!when!we!have!to!endure!a!capital!famine!
which!also!means!economic!stagnation,!worsening!unemployment!and!social!unrest.!
And! so,! this! is! exactly! what! we! ask! ! that! the! Committee! kindly! consider! incorporating! a! new! section,! probably!
Section!5,!in!the!article!on!Citizenship!which!will!read!as!follows:!DUAL!ALLEGIANCE!IS!INIMICAL!TO!CITIZENSHIP!AND!
SHALL!BE!DEALT!WITH!ACCORDING!TO!LAW.!
In!another!session!of!the!Commission,!Ople!spoke!on!the!problem!of!these!citizens!with!dual!allegiance,!thus:!11!
.!.!.!A!significant!number!of!Commissioners!expressed!their!concern!about!dual!citizenship!in!the!sense!that!it!implies!
a!double!allegiance!under!a!double!sovereignty!which!some!of!us!who!spoke!then!in!a!freewheeling!debate!thought!
would! be! repugnant! to! the! sovereignty! which! pervades! the! Constitution! and! to! citizenship! itself! which! implies! a!
uniqueness! and! which! elsewhere! in! the! Constitution! is! defined! in! terms! of! rights! and! obligations! exclusive! to! that!
citizenship!including,!of!course,!the!obligation!to!rise!to!the!defense!of!the!State!when!it!is!threatened,!and!back!of!
this,! Commissioner! Bernas,! is,! of! course,! the! concern! for! national! security.! In! the! course! of! those! debates,! I! think!
some!noted!the!fact!that!as!a!result!of!the!wave!of!naturalizations!since!the!decision!to!establish!diplomatic!relations!
with!the!People's!Republic!of!China!was!made!in!1975,!a!good!number!of!these!naturalized!Filipinos!still!routinely!go!
to! Taipei! every! October! 10;! and! it! is! asserted! that! some! of! them! do! renew! their! oath! of! allegiance! to! a! foreign!
government!maybe!just!to!enter!into!the!spirit!of!the!occasion!when!the!anniversary!of!the!Sun!YatDSen!Republic!is!
commemorated.!And!so,!I!have!detected!a!genuine!and!deep!concern!about!double!citizenship,!with!its!attendant!risk!
of!double!allegiance!which!is!repugnant!to!our!sovereignty!and!national!security.!I!appreciate!what!the!Committee!
said!that!this!could!be!left!to!the!determination!of!a!future!legislature.!But!considering!the!scale!of!the!problem,!the!
real! impact! on! the! security! of! this! country,! arising! from,! let! us! say,! potentially! great! numbers! of! double! citizens!
professing! double! allegiance,! will! the! Committee! entertain! a! proposed! amendment! at! the! proper! time! that! will!
prohibit,!in!effect,!or!regulate!double!citizenship?!

Clearly,!in!including!5!in!Article!IV!on!citizenship,!the!concern!of!the!Constitutional!Commission!was!not!with!dual!citizens,per,se!but!
with!naturalized!citizens!who!maintain!their!allegiance!to!their!countries!of!origin!even!after!their!naturalization.!Hence,!the!phrase!
"dual! citizenship"! in! R.A.! No.! 7160,! 40(d)! and! in! R.A.! No.! 7854,! 20! must! be! understood! as! referring! to! "dual! allegiance."!
Consequently,!persons!with!mere!dual!citizenship!do!not!fall!under!this!disqualification.!Unlike!those!with!dual!allegiance,!who!must,!
therefore,!be!subject!to!strict!process!with!respect!to!the!termination!of!their!status,!for!candidates!with!dual!citizenship,!it!should!
suffice!if,!upon!the!filing!of!their!certificates!of!candidacy,!they!elect!Philippine!citizenship!to!terminate!their!status!as!persons!with!
dual!citizenship!considering!that!their!condition!is!the!unavoidable!consequence!of!conflicting!laws!of!different!states.!As!Joaquin!G.!
Bernas,! one! of! the! most! perceptive! members! of! the! Constitutional! Commission,! pointed! out:! "[D]ual! citizenship! is! just! a! reality!
imposed!on!us!because!we!have!no!control!of!the!laws!on!citizenship!of!other!countries.!We!recognize!a!child!of!a!Filipino!mother.!
But!whether!she!is!considered!a!citizen!of!another!country!is!something!completely!beyond!our!control."!12!
By!electing!Philippine!citizenship,!such!candidates!at!the!same!time!forswear!allegiance!to!the!other!country!of!which!they!are!also!
citizens!and!thereby!terminate!their!status!as!dual!citizens.!It!may!be!that,!from!the!point!of!view!of!the!foreign!state!and!of!its!laws,!
such!an!individual!has!not!effectively!renounced!his!foreign!citizenship.!That!is!of!no!moment!as!the!following!discussion!on!40(d)!
between!Senators!Enrile!and!Pimentel!clearly!shows:13!
SENATOR!ENRILE.!Mr.!President,!I!would!like!to!ask!clarification!of!line!41,!page!17:!"Any!person!with!dual!citizenship"!
is!disqualified!to!run!for!any!elective!local!position.!Under!the!present!Constitution,!Mr.!President,!someone!whose!
mother!is!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines!but!his!father!is!a!foreigner!is!a!naturalDborn!citizen!of!the!Republic.!There!is!no!
requirement! that! such! a! natural! born! citizen,! upon! reaching! the! age! of! majority,! must! elect! or! give! up! Philippine!
citizenship.!
On!the!assumption!that!this!person!would!carry!two!passports,!one!belonging!to!the!country!of!his!or!her!father!and!
one! belonging! to! the! Republic! of! the! Philippines,! may! such! a! situation! disqualify! the! person! to! run! for! a! local!
government!position?!
SENATOR!PIMENTEL.!To!my!mind,!Mr.!President,!it!only!means!that!at!the!moment!when!he!would!want!to!run!for!
public!office,!he!has!to!repudiate!one!of!his!citizenships.!
SENATOR!ENRILE.!Suppose!he!carries!only!a!Philippine!passport!but!the!country!of!origin!or!the!country!of!the!father!
claims!that!person,!nevertheless,!as!a!citizen?!No!one!can!renounce.!There!are!such!countries!in!the!world.!

SENATOR!PIMENTEL.!Well,!the!very!fact!that!he!is!running!for!public!office!would,!in!effect,!be!an!election!for!him!of!
his!desire!to!be!considered!as!a!Filipino!citizen.!
SENATOR!ENRILE.!But,!precisely,!Mr.!President,!the!Constitution!does!not!require!an!election.!Under!the!Constitution,!
a! person! whose! mother! is! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines! is,! at! birth,! a! citizen! without! any! overt! act! to! claim! the!
citizenship.!
SENATOR! PIMENTEL.! Yes.! What! we! are! saying,! Mr.! President,! is:! Under! the! Gentleman's! example,! if! he! does! not!
renounce!his!other!citizenship,!then!he!is!opening!himself!to!question.!So,!if!he!is!really!interested!to!run,!the!first!
thing! he! should! do! is! to! say! in! the! Certificate! of! Candidacy! that:! "I! am! a! Filipino! citizen,! and! I! have! only! one!
citizenship."!
SENATOR! ENRILE.! But! we! are! talking! from! the! viewpoint! of! Philippine! law,! Mr.! President.! He! will! always! have! one!
citizenship,!and!that!is!the!citizenship!invested!upon!him!or!her!in!the!Constitution!of!the!Republic.!
SENATOR! PIMENTEL.! That! is! true,! Mr.! President.! But! if! he! exercises! acts! that! will! prove! that! he! also! acknowledges!
other!citizenships,!then!he!will!probably!fall!under!this!disqualification.!
This!is!similar!to!the!requirement!that!an!applicant!for!naturalization!must!renounce!"all!allegiance!and!fidelity!to!any!foreign!prince,!
potentate,! state,! or! sovereignty"!14$of! which! at! the! time! he! is! a! subject! or! citizen! before! he! can! be! issued! a! certificate! of!
naturalization!as!a!citizen!of!the!Philippines.!In!Parado,v.,Republic,!15!it!was!held:!
[W]hen!a!person!applying!for!citizenship!by!naturalization!takes!an!oath!that!he!renounce,!his!loyalty!to!any!other!
country! or! government! and! solemnly! declares! that! he! owes! his! allegiance! to! the! Republic! of! the! Philippines,! the!
condition!imposed!by!law!is!satisfied!and!compiled!with.!The!determination!whether!such!renunciation!is!valid!or!fully!
complies!with!the!provisions!of!our!Naturalization!Law!lies!within!the!province!and!is!an!exclusive!prerogative!of!our!
courts.!The!latter!should!apply!the!law!duly!enacted!by!the!legislative!department!of!the!Republic.!No!foreign!law!may!
or!should!interfere!with!its!operation!and!application.!If!the!requirement!of!the!Chinese!Law!of!Nationality!were!to!be!
read!into!our!Naturalization!Law,!we!would!be!applying!not!what!our!legislative!department!has!deemed!it!wise!to!
require,! but! what! a! foreign! government! has! thought! or! intended! to! exact.! That,! of! course,! is! absurd.! It! must! be!
resisted!by!all!means!and!at!all!cost.!It!would!be!a!brazen!encroachment!upon!the!sovereign!will!and!power!of!the!
people!of!this!Republic.!

III.!PETITIONER'S!ELECTION!OF!PHILIPPINE!CITIZENSHIP!
The!record!shows!that!private!respondent!was!born!in!San!Francisco,!California!on!September!4,!1955,!of!Filipino!parents.!Since!the!
Philippines!adheres!to!the!principle!of,jus,sanguinis,!while!the!United!States!follows!the!doctrine!of,jus,soli,!the!parties!agree!that,!at!
birth! at! least,! he! was! a! national! both! of! the! Philippines! and! of! the! United! States.! However,! the! COMELEC!en, banc,held! that,! by!
participating! in! Philippine! elections! in! 1992,! 1995,! and! 1998,! private! respondent! "effectively! renounced! his! U.S.! citizenship! under!
American!law,"!so!that!now!he!is!solely!a!Philippine!national.!
Petitioner!challenges!this!ruling.!He!argues!that!merely!taking!part!in!Philippine!elections!is!not!sufficient!evidence!of!renunciation!
and!that,!in!any!event,!as!the!alleged!renunciation!was!made!when!private!respondent!was!already!37!years!old,!it!was!ineffective!as!
it!should!have!been!made!when!he!reached!the!age!of!majority.!
In!holding!that!by!voting!in!Philippine!elections!private!respondent!renounced!his!American!citizenship,!the!COMELEC!must!have!in!
mind! 349! of! the! Immigration! and! Nationality! Act! of! the! United! States,! which! provided! that! "A! person! who! is! a! national! of! the!
United!States,!whether!by!birth!or!naturalization,!shall!lose!his!nationality!by:!.!.!.!(e)!Voting!in!a!political!election!in!a!foreign!state!or!
participating!in!an!election!or!plebiscite!to!determine!the!sovereignty!over!foreign!territory."!To!be!sure!this!provision!was!declared!
unconstitutional!by!the!U.S.!Supreme!Court!in!Afroyim,v.,Rusk!16$as!beyond!the!power!given!to!the!U.S.!Congress!to!regulate!foreign!
relations.! However,! by! filing! a! certificate! of! candidacy! when! he! ran! for! his! present! post,! private! respondent! elected! Philippine!
citizenship!and!in!effect!renounced!his!American!citizenship.!Private!respondent's!certificate!of!candidacy,!filed!on!March!27,!1998,!
contained!the!following!statements!made!under!oath:!
6.!I!AM!A!FILIPINO!CITIZEN!(STATE!IF!"NATURALDBORN"!OR!"NATURALIZED")!NATURALDBORN!
xxx!xxx!xxx!
10.!I!AM!A!REGISTERED!VOTER!OF!PRECINCT!NO.!747DA,!BARANGAY!SAN!LORENZO,!CITY/MUNICIPALITY!OF!MAKATI,!
PROVINCE!OF!NCR.!
11.!I!AM!NOT!A!PERMANENT!RESIDENT!OF,!OR!IMMIGRANT!TO,!A!FOREIGN!COUNTRY.!
12.!I!AM!ELIGIBLE!FOR!THE!OFFICE!I!SEEK!TO!BE!ELECTED.!I!WILL!SUPPORT!AND!DEFEND!THE!CONSTITUTION!OF!THE!
PHILIPPINES! AND! WILL! MAINTAIN! TRUE! FAITH! AND! ALLEGIANCE! THERETO;! THAT! I! WILL! OBEY! THE! LAWS,! LEGAL!

ORDERS! AND! DECREES! PROMULGATED! BY! THE! DULY! CONSTITUTED! AUTHORITIES! OF! THE! REPUBLIC! OF! THE!
PHILIPPINES;!AND!THAT!I!IMPOSE!THIS!OBLIGATION!UPON!MYSELF!VOLUNTARILY,!WITHOUT!MENTAL!RESERVATION!
OR!PURPOSE!OF!EVASION.!I!HEREBY!CERTIFY!THAT!THE!FACTS!STATED!HEREIN!ARE!TRUE!AND!CORRECT!OF!MY!OWN!
PERSONAL!KNOWLEDGE.!
The!filing!of!such!certificate!of!candidacy!sufficed!to!renounce!his!American!citizenship,!effectively!removing!any!disqualification!he!
might!have!as!a!dual!citizen.!Thus,!in!Frivaldo,v.,COMELEC!it!was!held:!17!
It!is!not!disputed!that!on!January!20,!1983!Frivaldo!became!an!American.!Would!the!retroactivity!of!his!repatriation!not!
effectively! give! him! dual! citizenship,! which! under! Sec.! 40! of! the! Local! Government! Code! would! disqualify! him! "from!
running!for!any!elective!local!position?"!We!answer!this!question!in!the!negative,!as!there!is!cogent!reason!to!hold!that!
Frivaldo!was!really!STATELESS!at!the!time!he!took!said!oath!of!allegiance!and!even!before!that,!when!he!ran!for!governor!
in!1988.!In!his!Comment,!Frivaldo!wrote!that!he!"had!long!renounced!and!had!long!abandoned!his!American!citizenship!
!long!before!May!8,!1995.!At!best,!Frivaldo!was!stateless!in!the!interim!!when!he!abandoned!and!renounced!his!US!
citizenship!but!before!he!was!repatriated!to!his!Filipino!citizenship."!
On!this!point,!we!quote!from!the!assailed!Resolution!dated!December!19,!1995:!
By!the!laws!of!the!United!States,!petitioner!Frivaldo!lost!his!American!citizenship!when!he!took!his!oath!
of!allegiance!to!the!Philippine!Government!when!he!ran!for!Governor!in!1988,!in!1992,!and!in!1995.!
Every!certificate!of!candidacy!contains!an!oath!of!allegiance!to!the!Philippine!Government.!
These!factual!findings!that!Frivaldo!has!lost!his!foreign!nationality!long!before!the!elections!of!1995!have!not!been!
effectively! rebutted! by! Lee.! Furthermore,! it! is! basic! that! such! findings! of! the! Commission! are! conclusive! upon! this!
Court,!absent!any!showing!of!capriciousness!or!arbitrariness!or!abuse.!
There!is,!therefore,!no!merit!in!petitioner's!contention!that!the!oath!of!allegiance!contained!in!private!respondent's!certificate!of!
candidacy! is! insufficient! to! constitute! renunciation! that,! to! be! effective,! such! renunciation! should! have! been! made! upon! private!
respondent!reaching!the!age!of!majority!since!no!law!requires!the!election!of!Philippine!citizenship!to!be!made!upon!majority!age.!
Finally,! much! is! made! of! the! fact! that! private! respondent! admitted! that! he! is! registered! as! an! American! citizen! in! the! Bureau! of!
Immigration!and!Deportation!and!that!he!holds!an!American!passport!which!he!used!in!his!last!travel!to!the!United!States!on!April!

22,!1997.!There!is!no!merit!in!this.!Until!the!filing!of!his!certificate!of!candidacy!on!March!21,!1998,!he!had!dual!citizenship.!The!acts!
attributed! to! him! can! be! considered! simply! as! the! assertion! of! his! American! nationality! before! the! termination! of! his! American!
citizenship.!What!this!Court!said!in!Aznar,v.COMELEC,18$applies!mutatis,mundatis!to!private!respondent!in!the!case!at!bar:!
.!.!.!Considering!the!fact!that!admittedly!Osmea!was!both!a!Filipino!and!an!American,!the!mere!fact!that!he!has!a!
Certificate!staring!he!is!an!American!does!not!mean!that!he!is!not!still!a!Filipino.!.!.!.![T]he!Certification!that!he!is!an!
American!does!not!mean!that!he!is!not!still!a!Filipino,!possessed!as!he!is,!of!both!nationalities!or!citizenships.!Indeed,!
there!is!no!express!renunciation!here!of!Philippine!citizenship;!truth!to!tell,!there!is!even!no!implied!renunciation!of!
said!citizenship.!When!We!consider!that!the!renunciation!needed!to!lose!Philippine!citizenship!must!be!"express,"!it!
stands! to! reason! that! there! can! be! no! such! loss! of! Philippine! citizenship! when! there! is! no! renunciation,! either!
"express"!or!"implied."!
To! recapitulate,! by! declaring! in! his! certificate! of! candidacy! that! he! is! a! Filipino! citizen;! that! he! is! not! a! permanent! resident! or!
immigrant!of!another!country;!that!he!will!defend!and!support!the!Constitution!of!the!Philippines!and!bear!true!faith!and!allegiance!
thereto!and!that!he!does!so!without!mental!reservation,!private!respondent!has,!as!far!as!the!laws!of!this!country!are!concerned,!
effectively!repudiated!his!American!citizenship!and!anything!which!he!may!have!said!before!as!a!dual!citizen.!
On!the!other!hand,!private!respondent's!oath!of!allegiance!to!the!Philippines,!when!considered!with!the!fact!that!he!has!spent!his!
youth!and!adulthood,!received!his!education,!practiced!his!profession!as!an!artist,!and!taken!part!in!past!elections!in!this!country,!
leaves!no!doubt!of!his!election!of!Philippine!citizenship.!
His!declarations!will!be!taken!upon!the!faith!that!he!will!fulfill!his!undertaking!made!under!oath.!Should!he!betray!that!trust,!there!
are! enough! sanctions! for! declaring! the! loss! of! his! Philippine! citizenship! through! expatriation! in! appropriate! proceedings.! In!Yu,
v.,DefensorPSantiago,!19$we!sustained!the!denial!of!entry!into!the!country!of!petitioner!on!the!ground!that,!after!taking!his!oath!as!a!
naturalized!citizen,!he!applied!for!the!renewal!of!his!Portuguese!passport!and!declared!in!commercial!documents!executed!abroad!
that!he!was!a!Portuguese!national.!A!similar!sanction!can!be!taken!against!any!one!who,!in!electing!Philippine!citizenship,!renounces!
his!foreign!nationality,!but!subsequently!does!some!act!constituting!renunciation!of!his!Philippine!citizenship.!
WHEREFORE,!the!petition!for!certiorari!is!DISMISSED!for!lack!of!merit.1wphi1.nt!
SO!ORDERED.!

!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
G.R.$No.$137329$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$August$9,$2000!
ROGELIO$
M.$
TORAYNO$
SR.,$
GENEROSO$
ELIGAN$
vs.!
COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS$and$VICENTE$Y.$EMANO,$respondents.!

and$

JACQUELINE$

M.$

SERIO,$petitioners,!!

D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
PANGANIBAN,$J.:!
The! Constitution! and! the! law! requires! residence! as! a! qualification! for! seeking! and! holding! elective! public! office,! in! order! to! give!
candidates!the!opportunity!to!be!familiar!with!the!needs,!difficulties,!aspirations,!potentials!for!growth!and!all!matters!vital!to!the!
welfare!of!their!constituencies;!likewise,!it!enables!the!electorate!to!evaluate!the!office!seekers'!qualifications!and!fitness!for!the!job!
they!aspire!for.!Inasmuch!as!Vicente!Y.!Emano!has!proven!that!he,!together!with!his!family,!(1)!had!actually!resided!in!a!house!he!
bought!in!1973!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City;!(2)!had!actually!held!office!there!during!his!three!terms!as!provincial!governor!of!Misamis!
Oriental,!the!provincial!capitol!being!located!therein;!and!(3)!has!registered!as!voter!in!the!city!during!the!period!required!by!law,!he!
could!not!be!deemed!"a!stranger!or!newcomer"!when!he!ran!for!and!was!overwhelmingly!voted!as!city!mayor.!Election!laws!must!be!
liberally!construed!to!give!effect!to!the!popular!mandate.!
The!Case!
Before!us!is!a!Petition!for!Certiorari!under!Rule!65!of!the!Rules!of!Court!seeking!to!set!aside!the!January!18,!1999!Resolution1!of!the!
Commission! on! Elections! (Comelec)! en! banc! in! SPA! No.! 98D298,! which! upheld! the! July! 14,! 1998! Resolution2!of! the! Comelec! First!
Division.!The!assailed!Resolutions!ruled!that!Private!Respondent!Vicente!Y.!Emano!possessed!the!minimum!period!of!residence!to!be!
eligible!to!vote!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City,!as!well!as!be!voted!mayor!thereof.!

The!Facts!
The!pertinent!facts!of!the!case,!as!culled!from!the!records,!are!as!follows.!
During!the!1995!elections,!Vicente!Y.!Emano!ran!for,!was!elected,!and!proclaimed!provincial!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental.!It!was!his!
third!consecutive!term!as!governor!of!the!province.!In!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!dated!March!12,!1995,!his!residence!was!declared!
to!be!in!Tagoloan,!Misamis!Oriental.!
On!June!14,!1997,!while!still!the!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental,!Emano!executed!a!Voter!Registration!Record!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!
(geographically!located!in!the!Province!of!Misamis!Oriental),!a!highly!urbanized!city,!in!which!he!claimed!20!years!of!residence.!On!
March!25,!1998,!he!filed!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!for!mayor!of!the!city,!stating!therein!that!his!residence!for!the!preceding!two!
years!and!five!months!was!at!1409!San!Jose!Street,!Capistrano!Subdivision,!Gusa,!Cagayan!de!Oro!City.!
Among! those! who! ran! for! the! mayorship! of! the! city! in! 1998,! along! with! Emano,! was! Erasmo! B.! Damasing,! counsel! of! herein!
petitioners.! On! May! 15,! 1998,! Petitioners! Rogelio! M.! Torayno! Sr.,! Generoso! Q.! Eligan! and! Jacqueline! M.! Serio,! all! residents! of!
Cagayan!de!Oro!City,!filed!a!Petition!before!the!Comelec,!docketed!as!SPA!No.!98D298,!in!which!they!sought!the!disqualification!of!
Emano!as!mayoral!candidate,!on!the!ground!that!he!had!allegedly!failed!to!meet!the!oneDyear!residence!requirement.!Prior!to!the!
resolution! of! their! Petition,! the! Comelec! proclaimed! private! respondent! as! the! duly! elected! city! mayor.! Thus,! on! May! 29,! 1998,!
petitioners!filed!another!Petition!before!the!Comelec,!this!time!for!quo,warranto,3!in!which!they!sought!(1)!the!annulment!of!the!
election! of! private! respondent;! and! (2)! the! proclamation! of! Erasmo! B.! Damasing,! who! had! garnered! the! next! highest! number! of!
votes,!as!the!duly!elected!mayor!of!the!city.!
In!its!Resolution!dated!July!14,!1998,!the!Comelec!First!Division!denied!the!Petition!for!Disqualification.!Upon!petitioners'!Motion!for!
Reconsideration!and!Motion!for!Consolidation,!the!two!cases!were!consolidated.4!
Ruling!of!the!Comelec!
As!earlier!stated,!the!Comelec!en!banc!upheld!the!findings!and!conclusions!of!the!First!Division,!holding!that!"[t]he!records!clearly!
show!that!the!respondent!is!an!actual!resident!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!for!such!a!period!of!time!necessary!to!qualify!him!to!run!for!
mayor! therein.! This! fact! is! clearly! established! by! the! respondent! having! a! house! in! the! city! which! has! been! existing! therein! since!
1973!and!where!his!family!has!been!living!since!then."!

Additionally,!it!ruled:!
"There!is!nothing!in!the!law!which!bars!an!elected!provincial!official!from!residing!and/or!registering!as!a!voter!in!a!highly!urbanized!
city!whose!residents!are!not!given!the!right!to!vote!for!and!be!elected!to!a!position!in!the!province!embracing!such!highly!urbanized!
city!as!long!as!he!has!complied!with!the!requirements!prescribed!by!law!in!the!case!of!a!qualified!voter.!
"Neither!can!the!list!of!voters!submitted!as!evidence!for!the!petitioners!showing!that!the!respondent!was!a!registered!voter!as!of!
March! 13,! 1995! in! Precinct! No.! 12,! Barangay! Poblacion,! Tagoloan,! Misamis! Oriental! bolster! the! petitioner's! argument! that! the!
respondent! is! not! a! resident! [or! a]! registered! voter! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City! since! registration! in! said! Precinct! No.! 12! does! not!
preclude!the!respondent!from!registering!anew!in!another!place."!
Hence,!this!recourse5!before!this!Court.!
Issues!
In!their!Memorandum,6!petitioners!submit!that!the!main!issue!is!whether!the!"Comelec!gravely!abused!its!discretion!amounting!to!
lack!of!jurisdiction!in!issuing!the!questioned!Resolutions."!Allegedly,!the!resolution!of!this!issue!would!depend!on!the!following:7!
"1.!Whether!or!not!private!respondent!Emano's!
(a)!remaining!as!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental!until!he!filed!his!certificate!of!candidacy!for!mayor!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!
City!on!March!25,!1998!in!the!May!11,!1998!election;!
(b)!asserting!under!oath![that!he!was]!qualified!to!act!as!governor!of!said!province!until!said!date;!and!
(c)!admitting,!in!sworn!statements,![that!he!was]!a!resident!of!Misamis!Oriental,!
precluded!him!from!acquiring!a!bona,fide,domicile!of!choice!for!at!least!one!(1)!year!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!prior!to!the!May!
11,!1998!elections,!as!to!disqualify!him!for!being!a!candidate!for!city!mayor!of!said!City.!
2.! Differently! stated,! whether! or! not! Emano's! securing! a! residence! certificate! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City,! holding! offices! as!
governor!of!Misamis!Oriental!in!the!Capitol!Building!located!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!and!having!a!house!therein!where![he!

had]!stay[ed]!during!his!tenure!as!governor,!and!registering!as!a!voter!in!said!City!in!June!1997,!would!be!legally!sufficient,!as!
against!the!undisputed!facts!above!enumerated,!to!constitute!a!change!of!his!domicile!of!birth!in!Tagoloan,!Misamis!Oriental!
in!favor!of!a!new!domicile!of!choice!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!for!at!least!one!(1)!year!for!purposes!of!qualifying!him!to!run!for!
city!mayor!in!the!May!11,!1998!elections.!
3.!Whether!or!not!Erasmo!Damasing,!the!candidate!for!mayor!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!in!the!May!11,!1998!elections,!who!
received!the!second!highest!number!of!votes,!can!be!declared!winner,!considering!that!respondent!Emano!was!disqualified!
to!run!for!and!hold!said!office!and!considering!that!his!disqualification!or!ineligibility!had!been!extensively!brought!to!the!
attention!and!consciousness!of!the!voters!prior!to!the!May!11,!1998!election!as!to!attain!notoriety,!notwithstanding!which!
they!still!voted!for!him."!
Petitioners! are! seeking! the! resolution! of! essentially! two! questions:! (1)! whether! private! respondent! had! duly! established! his!
residence! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City! at! least! one! year! prior! to! the! May! 11,! 1998! elections! to! qualify! him! to! run! for! the! mayorship!
thereof;!and!(2)!if!not,!whether!Erasmo!Damasing,!the!candidate!who!had!received!the!second!highest!number!of!votes,!should!be!
proclaimed!mayor!of!the!city.!
The!Courts!Ruling!
The!Petition!has!no!merit.!
Preliminary,Matter:,Locus!Standi,of,Petitioners!
Although!not!raised!by!the!parties,!the!legal!standing!of!the!petitioners!was!deliberated!upon!by!the!Court.!We!note!that!petitioners!
pray,!among!others,!for!judgment!"declaring!Atty.!Erasmo!B.!Damasing!as!entitled!to!be!proclaimed!winner!as!mayor!in!the!May!11,!
1998!elections!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City."8!And!yet,!Damasing!is!not!a!party!to!the!instant!"Petition!for!Certiorari!pursuant!to!Rule[s]!
64!and!65"!brought!before!us.!
Under!the!Rules!of!Court,!a!quo,warranto,may!be!brought!only!by!(1)!the!solicitor!general!or!(2)!a!public!prosecutor!or!(3)!a!person!
claiming!to!be!entitled!to!the!public!office!or!position!usurped!or!unlawfully!held!or!exercised!by!another.9!A!reading!of!the!Rules!
shows!that!petitioners,!none!of!whom!qualify!under!any!of!the!above!three!categories,!are!without!legal!standing!to!bring!this!suit.!

However,!the!present!Petition!finds!its!root!in!two!separate!cases!filed!before!the!Comelec:!(1)!SPC!98D298!for!disqualification!and!
(2)! EPC! 98D62! for! quo! warranto.! Under! our! election! laws! and! the! Comelec! Rules! of! Procedure,!any, voter!may! file! a! petition! to!
disqualify! a! candidate! on! grounds! provided! by! law,10!or! to! contest! the! election! of! a! city! officer! on! the! ground! of! ineligibility! or!
disloyalty! to! the! Republic.11!The! petitioners! herein,! being! "dulyDregistered! voters"! of! Cagayan! de! Oro! City,! therefore! satisfy! the!
requirement!of!said!laws!and!rules.12!
Main!Issue:!Residence,Qualification,for,Candidacy!
Petitioners! argue! that! private! respondent! maintains! his! domicile! in! Tagoloan,! Misamis! Oriental,! not! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City,! as!
allegedly!shown!by!the!following!facts:!(1)!he!had!run!and!won!as!governor!of!the!province!of!Misamis!Oriental!for!three!consecutive!
terms! immediately! preceding! the! 1998! elections;! (2)! in! the! pleadings! he! filed! in! connection! with! an! election! protest! against! him!
relating! to! the! 1995! election,! he! had! stated! that! he! was! a! resident! of! Tagoloan,! Misamis! Oriental;! (3)! he! had! fully! exercised! the!
powers!and!prerogatives!of!governor!until!he!filed!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!for!mayor!on!March!25,!1998.!
Petitioners!claim!that!in!discharging!his!duties!as!provincial!governor,!private!respondent!remained!a!resident!of!the!province.!They!
aver!that!residence!is!a!continuing!qualification!that!an!elective!official!must!possess!throughout!his!term.!Thus,!private!respondent!
could!not!have!changed!his!residence!to!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!while!he!was!still!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental.!
Petitioners!further!contend!that!the!following!were!not!sufficient!to!constitute!a!change!of!domicile:!having!a!house!in!Cagayan!de!
Oro!City,!residing!therein!while!exercising!one's!office!as!governor!(the!city!being!the!seat!of!government!of!the!province),!securing!a!
residence!certificate!and!registering!as!voter!therein.!
Private! respondent,! on! the! other! hand,! alleges! that! he! actually! and! physically! resided! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City! while! serving! as!
provincial! governor! for! three! consecutive! terms,! since! the! seat! of! the! provincial! government! was! located! at! the! heart! of! that!
city.13!He!also!avers!that!one's!choice!of!domicile!is!a!matter!of!intention,!and!it!is!the!person!concerned!who!would!be!in!the!best!
position!to!make!a!choice.!In!this!case,!Emano!decided!to!adopt!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!as!his!place!of!residence!after!the!May!1995!
elections.!In!fact,!in!January!1997,!he!secured!his!Community!Tax!Certificate!at!the!City!Treasurer's!Office,!stating!therein!that!he!
was!a!resident!of!1409!San!Jose!Street,!Capistrano!Subdivision,!Gusa,!Cagayan!de!Oro!City.!During!the!general!registration!of!voters!
in!June!1997,!he!registered!in!one!of!the!precincts!of!Gusa,!Cagayan!de!Oro!City.!This!meant!that,!at!the!time,!Emano!had!been!a!
voter!of!the!city!for!the!minimum!period!required!by!law.!No!one!has!ever!challenged!this!fact!before!any!tribunal.!

Private! respondent! contends! further! that! his! transfer! of! legal! residence! did! not!ipso, facto!divest! him! of! his! position! as! provincial!
governor.!First,! there! is! no! law! that! prevents! an! elected! official! from! transferring! residence! while! in! office.!Second,! an! elective!
official's!transfer!of!residence!does!not!prevent!the!performance!of!that!official's!duties,!especially!in!private!respondent's!case!in!
which!the!seat!of!government!became!his!adopted!place!of!residence.Third,!as!ruled!in!Frivaldo,v.,Comelec,14!the!loss!of!any!of!the!
required!qualifications!for!election!merely!renders!the!official's!title!or!right!to!office!open!to!challenge.!In!Emano's!case,!no!one!
challenged! his! right! to! the! Office! of! Provincial! Governor! when! he! transferred! his! residence! to! Cagayan! de! Oro! City.! Naturally,! he!
continued!to!discharge!his!functions!as!such,!until!he!filed!his!candidacy!for!mayor!in!March!1998.!
Lastly,!Emano!urges!that!the!sanctity!of!the!people's!will,!as!expressed!in!the!election!result,!must!be!respected.!He!is!not,!after!all,!a!
stranger!to!the!city,!much!less!to!its!voters.!During!his!three!terms!as!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental,!his!life!and!actuations!have!been!
closely!interwoven!with!the!pulse!and!beat!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City.!
Public!Respondent!Comelec!relies!essentially!on!RomualdezPMarcos,v.,Comelec15!in!its!Memorandum16!which!supports!the!assailed!
Resolutions,!and!which!has!been!filed!in!view!of!the!solicitor!general's!Manifestation!and!Motion!in!Lieu!of!Comment.17!Thus,!the!
poll!body!argues!that!"x!x!x!the!fact!of!residence!x!x!x!ought!to!be!decisive!in!determining!whether!or!not!an!individual!has!satisfied!
the!Constitution's!residency!qualification!requirement."!
Law,on,Qualifications,of,Local,Elective,Officials!
The!pertinent!provision!sought!to!be!enforced!is!Section!39!of!the!Local!Government!Code!(LGC)!of!1991,18which!provides!for!the!
qualifications!of!local!elective!officials,!as!follows:!
"SEC.! 39.!Qualifications.! D! (a)! An! elective! local! official! must! be! a! citizen! of! the! Philippines;! a! registered! voter! in! the! barangay,!
municipality,!city,!or!province!x!x!x!where!he!intends!to!be!elected;!a!resident!therein!for!at!least!one!(1)!year!immediately!preceding!
the!day!of!the!election;!and!able!to!read!and!write!Filipino!or!any!other!local!language!or!dialect."!
Generally,! in! requiring! candidates! to! have! a! minimum! period! of! residence! in! the! area! in! which! they! seek! to! be! elected,! the!
Constitution!or!the!law!intends!to!prevent!the!possibility!of!a!"stranger!or!newcomer!unacquainted!with!the!conditions!and!needs!of!
a!community!and!not!identified!with!the!latter!from![seeking]!an!elective!office!to!serve!that!community."19!Such!provision!is!aimed!
at! excluding! outsiders! "from! taking! advantage! of! favorable! circumstances! existing! in! that! community! for! electoral!
gain."20!Establishing!residence!in!a!community!merely!to!meet!an!election!law!requirement!defeats!the!purpose!of!representation:!
to!elect!through!the!assent!of!voters!those!most!cognizant!and!sensitive!to!the!needs!of!the!community.!This!purpose!is!"best!met!

by!individuals!who!have!either!had!actual!residence!in!the!area!for!a!given!period!or!who!have!been!domiciled!in!the!same!area!
either!by!origin!or!by!choice."21!
Facts,Showing,Change,of,Residence!
In! the! recent! en! banc! case!MambaPPerez, v., Comelec,22!this! Court! ruled! that! private! respondent! therein,! now! Representative!
Rodolfo!E.!Aguinaldo!of!the!Third!District!of!Cagayan,!had!duly!proven!his!change!of!residence!from!Gattaran,!Cagayan!(part!of!the!
First!District)!to!Tuguegarao,!Cagayan!(part!of!the!Third!District!in!which!he!sought!election!as!congressman).!He!proved!it!with!the!
following!facts:!(1)!in!July!1990,!he!leased!and!lived!in!a!residential!apartment!in!Magallanes!Street,!Tuguegarao,!Cagayan;!(2)!in!July!
1995,!he!leased!another!residential!apartment!in!Kamias!Street,!Tanza,!Tuguegarao,!Cagayan;!(3)!the!January!18,!1998!Certificate!of!
Marriage!between!Aguinaldo!and!his!second!wife,!Lerma!Dumaguit;!(4)!the!Certificate!of!Live!Birth!of!his!second!daughter;!and!(5)!
various!letters!addressed!to!him!and!his!family!showed!that!he!had!been!a!resident!of!Tuguegarao!for!at!least!one!year!immediately!
preceding!the!May!1998!elections.!The!Court!also!stated!that!it!was!not!"of!much!importance!that!in!his![Aguinaldo's]!certificates!of!
candidacy! for! provincial! governor! in! the! elections! of! 1988,! 1992,! and! 1995,! private! respondent! stated! that! he! was! a! resident! of!
Gattaran."23!
In!the!case!at!bar,!the!Comelec!found!that!private!respondent!and!his!family!had!actually!been!residing!in!Capistrano!Subdivision,!
Gusa,! Cagayan! de! Oro! City,! in! a! house! he! had! bought! in! 1973.! Furthermore,! during! the! three! terms! (1988D1998)! that! he! was!
governor!of!Misamis!Oriental,!he!physically!lived!in!that!city,!where!the!seat!of!the!provincial!government!was!located.!In!June!1997,!
he! also! registered! as! voter! of! the! same! city.! Based! on! our! ruling! in!MambaPPerez,!these! facts! indubitably! prove! that! Vicente! Y.!
Emano!was!a!resident!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!for!a!period!of!time!sufficient!to!qualify!him!to!run!for!public!office!therein.!Moreover,!
the!Comelec!did!not!find!any!bad!faith!on!the!part!of!Emano!in!his!choice!of!residence.!
Petitioners!put!much!emphasis!on!the!fact!that!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!is!a!highly!urbanized!city!whose!voters!cannot!participate!in!the!
provincial! elections.! Such! political! subdivisions! and! voting! restrictions,! however,! are! simply! for! the! purpose! of! parity! in!
representation.! The! classification! of! an! area! as! a! highly! urbanized! or! independent! component! city,! for! that! matter,! does! not!
completely! isolate! its! residents,! politics,! commerce! and! other! businesses! from! the! entire! province! DD! and! vice! versa! DD! especially!
when!the!city!is!located!at!the!very!heart!of!the!province!itself,!as!in!this!case.!
Undeniably,!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!was!once!an!integral!part!of!Misamis!Oriental!and!remains!a!geographical!part!of!the!province.!Not!
only! is! it! at! the! center! of! the! province;! more! important,! it! is! itself! the! seat! of! the! provincial! government.! As! a! consequence,! the!
provincial! officials! who! carry! out! their! functions! in! the! city! cannot! avoid! residing! therein;! much! less,! getting! acquainted! with! its!

concerns!and!interests.!Vicente!Y.!Emano,!having!been!the!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental!for!three!terms!and!consequently!residing!
in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!within!that!period,!could!not!be!said!to!be!a!stranger!or!newcomer!to!the!city!in!the!last!year!of!his!third!
term,!when!he!decided!to!adopt!it!as!his!permanent!place!of!residence.!
Significantly,! the! Court! also! declared! in!MambaPPerez!that! "although! private! respondent! declared! in! his! certificates! of! candidacy!
prior!to!the!May!11,!1998!elections!that!he!was!a!resident!of!Gattaran,!Cagayan,!the!fact!is!that!he!was!actually!a!resident!of!the!
Third!District!not!just!for!one!(1)!year!prior!to!the!May!11,!1998!elections!but!for!more!than!seven!(7)!years!since!July!1990.!His!claim!
that!he!ha[s]!been!a!resident!of!Tuguegarao!since!July!1990!is!credible!considering!that!he!was!governor!from!1988!to!1998!and,!
therefore,!it!would!be!convenient!for!him!to!maintain!his!residence!in!Tuguegarao,!which!is!the!capital!of!the!province!of!Cagayan."!
Similarly! in! the! instant! case,! private! respondent! was! actually! and! physically! residing! in! Cagayan! de! Oro! City! while! discharging! his!
duties!as!governor!of!Misamis!Oriental.!He!owned!a!house!in!the!city!and!resided!there!together!with!his!family.!He!even!paid!his!
1998!community!tax!and!registered!as!a!voter!therein.!To!all!intents!and!purposes!of!the!Constitution!and!the!law,!he!is!a!resident!of!
Cagayan!de!Oro!City!and!eligible!to!run!for!mayor!thereof.!
To! petitioners'! argument! that! Emano! could! not! have! continued! to! qualify! as! provincial! governor! if! he! was! indeed! a! resident! of!
Cagayan!de!Oro!City,!we!respond!that!the!issue!before!this!Court!is!whether!Emano's!residence!in!the!city!qualifies!him!to!run!for!
and!be!elected!as!mayor,!not!whether!he!could!have!continued!sitting!as!governor!of!the!province.!There!was!no!challenge!to!his!
eligibility!to!continue!running!the!province;!hence,!this!Court!cannot!make!any!pronouncement!on!such!issue.!Considerations!of!due!
process! prevent! us! from! adjudging! matters! not! properly! brought! to! us.! On! the! basis,! however,! of! the! facts! proven! before! the!
Comelec,!we!hold!that!he!has!satisfied!the!residence!qualification!required!by!law!for!the!mayorship!of!the!city.!
We!stress!that!the!residence!requirement!is!rooted!in!the!desire!that!officials!of!districts!or!localities!be!acquainted!not!only!with!the!
metes! and! bounds! of! their! constituencies! but,! more! important,! with! the! constituents! themselves! DD! their! needs,! difficulties,!
aspirations,!potentials!for!growth!and!development,!and!all!matters!vital!to!their!common!welfare.!The!requisite!period!would!give!
candidates!the!opportunity!to!be!familiar!with!their!desired!constituencies,!and!likewise!for!the!electorate!to!evaluate!the!former's!
qualifications!and!fitness!for!the!offices!they!seek.!
In!other!words,!the!actual,!physical!and!personal!presence!of!herein!private!respondent!in!Cagayan!de!Oro!City!is!substantial!enough!
to!show!his!intention!to!fulfill!the!duties!of!mayor!and!for!the!voters!to!evaluate!his!qualifications!for!the!mayorship.!Petitioners'!
very!legalistic,!academic!and!technical!approach!to!the!residence!requirement!does!not!satisfy!this!simple,!practical!and!commonD
sense!rationale!for!the!residence!requirement.!

Interpretation,to,Favor,Popular,Mandate!
There!is!no!question!that!private!respondent!was!the!overwhelming!choice!of!the!people!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City.1wphi1!He!won!by!
a!margin!of!about!30,000!votes.24!Thus,!we!find!it!apt!to!reiterate!the!principle!that!the!manifest!will!of!the!people!as!expressed!
through! the! ballot! must! be! given! fullest! effect.! In! case! of! doubt,! political! laws! must! be! interpreted! to! give! life! and! spirit! to! the!
popular!mandate.25!Verily,!in!Frivaldo,v.,Comelec,26!the!Court!held:!
"x!x!x![T]his!Court!has!repeatedly!stressed!the!importance!of!giving!effect!to!the!sovereign!will!in!order!to!ensure!the!survival!of!our!
democracy.!In!any!action!involving!the!possibility!of!a!reversal!of!the!popular!electoral!choice,!this!Court!must!exert!utmost!effort!to!
resolve!the!issues!in!a!manner!that!would!give!effect!to!the!will!of!the!majority,!for!it!is!merely!sound!public!policy!to!cause!elective!
offices!to!be!filled!by!those!who!are!the!choice!of!the!majority.!To!successfully!challenge!a!winning!candidate's!qualifications,!the!
petitioner! must! clearly! demonstrate! that! the! ineligibility! is! so! patently! antagonistic! to! constitutional! and! legal! principles! that!
overriding!such!ineligibility!and!thereby!giving!effect!to!the!apparent!will!of!the!people!would!ultimately!create!greater!prejudice!to!
the!very!democratic!institutions!and!juristic!traditions!that!our!Constitution!and!laws!so!zealously!protect!and!promote."!
In! the! same! vein,! we! stated! in!Alberto, v., Comelec27!that! "election! cases! involve! public! interest;! thus,! laws! governing! election!
contests!must!be!liberally!construed!to!the!end!that!the!will!of!the!people!in!the!choice!of!public!officials!may!not!be!defeated!by!
mere!technical!objections."!
Indeed,!"it!would!be!far!better!to!err!in!favor!of!popular!sovereignty!than!to!be!right!in!complex!but!little!understood!legalisms."28!
In!sum,!we!hold!that!Respondent!Comelec!cannot!be!faulted!with!abuse,!much!less!grave!abuse,!of!discretion!in!upholding!private!
respondent's!election.!
Corollary!Issue:!Effect,of,Disqualification,of,Winner,on,Second,Placer!
With!the!resolution!of!the!first!issue!in!the!positive,!it!is!obvious!that!the!second!one!posited!by!petitioners!has!become!academic!
and!need!not!be!ruled!upon.!
WHEREFORE,!the!Petition!is!DISMISSED,and$the!assailed!Comelec!Resolutions!AFFIRMED.!Costs!against!petitioners.!
SO!ORDERED.!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
G.R.$No.$207900$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$April$22,$2014!
MAYOR$
GAMAL$
vs.!
COMMISSION$ON$ELECTIONS$and$MUSTAPHA$J.$OMAR,!Respondents.!

S.$

HAYUDINI,!Petitioner,!!

D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
PERALTA,$J.:!
For!the!Court's!resolution!is!a!Petition!for!Certiorari!and!Prohibition1!under!Rule!65,!which!petitioner!Gamal!S.!Hayudini!(Hayudini)!
filed!to!set!aside!and!annul!the!assailed!Resolutions!of!the!Commission!on!Elections!(COMELEC),!dated!June!20,!20132!and!July!10,!
2013,3!which!cancelled!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy!for!the!mayoralty!seat!in!the!2013!local!elections!in!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi,!for!
having!been!issued!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion!amounting!to!lack!or!in!excess!of!jurisdiction.!
The!antecedent!facts!are:!
On!October!5,!2012,!Hayudini!filed!his!Certificate!of!Candidacy4!(CoC)!for!the!position!of!Municipal!Mayor!of!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi!
in!the!May!13,!2013!National!and!Local!Elections!held!in!the!Autonomous!Region!in!Muslim!Mindanao.!Ten!days!after,!or!on!October!
15,! 2012,! Mustapha! J.! Omar! (Omar)! filed! a! Petition! to! Deny! Due! Course! or! Cancel! Hayudinis! CoC,! entitled! Mustapha! J.! Omar! v.!
Gamal! S.! Hayudini,! docketed! as! SPA! No.! 13D106(DC)(F).5!Omar! basically! asserted! that! Hayudini! should! be! disqualified! for! making!
false!representation!regarding!his!residence.!He!claimed!that!Hayudini!declared!in!his!CoC!that!he!is!a!resident!of!the!Municipality!of!
South!Ubian!when,!in!fact,!he!resides!in!Zamboanga!City.!
Thereafter,! on! November! 30,! 2012,! Hayudini! filed! a! Petition! for! Inclusion! in! the! Permanent! List! of! Voters! in! Barangay! Bintawlan,!
South! Ubian! before! the! Municipal! Circuit! Trial! Court! (MCTC).! Despite! the! opposition! of! Ignacio! Aguilar! Baki,! the! MCTC! granted!
Hayudinis! petition! on! January! 31,! 2013.6!On! that! same! day,! the! COMELECs! First! Division! dismissed7!Omars! earlier! petition! to!
cancel!Hayudinis!CoC!in!SPA!No.!13D106(DC)(F)!for!lack!of!substantial!evidence!that!Hayudini!committed!false!representation!as!to!
his!residency.!

Oppositor! Baki,! subsequently,! elevated! the! case! to! the! Bongao! Regional! Trial! Court! (RTC),! Branch! 5.! The! RTC,! on! March! 8,! 2013,!
Reversed8!the!MCTC!ruling!and!ordered!the!deletion!of!Hayudinis!name!in!Barangay!Bintawlans!permanent!list!of!voters.!In!view!of!
said!decision,!Omar!filed!before!the!COMELEC!a!Petition!to!Cancel!the!Certificate!of!Candidacy!of!Gamal!S.!Hayudini!by!Virtue!of!a!
Supervening!Event!on!March!26,!2013.!The!petition!was!docketed!as!SPA!No.!13D249(DC)(F).9!Hayudini!appealed!the!March!8,!2013!
RTC!decision!to!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA),!but!on!April!17,!2013,!in!CADG.R.!SP!No.!05426,10!the!same!was!denied.!
On!May!13,!2013,!Hayudini!won!the!mayoralty!race!in!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi.!He!was!proclaimed!and,!consequently,!took!his!oath!
of!office.!
On!June!20,!2013,!the!COMELEC!Second!Division!issued!a!Resolution11!granting!Omars!second!petition!to!cancel!Hayudinis!CoC.!
The!dispositive!portion!of!the!COMELEC!Resolution!reads:!
WHEREFORE,!premises!considered,!the!instant!petition!is!hereby!GRANTED.!Accordingly,!the!Certificate!of!Candidacy!filed!by!Gamal!
S.!Hayudini!as!Mayor!of!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi,!in!the!13!May!2013!elections,!is!hereby!CANCELLED.!
The! Office! of! the! Deputy! Executive! Director! for! Operations! is! hereby! directed! to! constitute! a! Special! Board! of! Canvassers! for! the!
purpose!of!proclaiming!the!lawful!winner!for!mayoralty!position!in!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi!during!the!13!May!2013!elections.!
SO!ORDERED.12!
Hayudini,! thus,! filed! a! Motion! for! Reconsideration! with! the! COMELEC! En! Banc,! arguing! that! its! Second! Division! committed! grave!
error!when!it!gave!due!course!to!a!belatedly!filed!petition!and!treated!the!March!8,!2013!RTC!Decision!as!a!supervening!event.!
On!July!10,!2013,!the!COMELEC!En!Banc!denied!Hayudinis!Motion!for!Reconsideration!for!lack!of!merit.!The!decretal!portion!of!the!
En!Bancs!assailed!Resolution!states:!
WHEREFORE,!premises!considered,!the!Commission!RESOLVED,!as!it!hereby!RESOLVES!to!DENY!this!Motion!for!Reconsideration!for!
LACK!OF!MERIT.!Consequently,!the!June!20,!2013!Resolution!of!the!Commission!(Second!Division)!is!hereby!affirmed.!
Corollary!thereto,!the!proclamation!of!respondent!GAMAL!S.!HAYUDINI!is!hereby!declared!null!and!void!and!without!any!legal!force!
and! effect.! SALMA! A.! OMAR! is! hereby! proclaimed! as! the! dulyDelected! Mayor! for! South! Ubian,! TawiDTawi,! being! the! qualified!

candidate! obtaining! the! highest! number! of! votes,! considering! the! doctrine! laid! down! by! the! case! Aratea! v.! Comelec13!that! a!
cancelled!CoC!cannot!give!rise!to!a!valid!candidacy,!and!much!less,!to!a!valid!vote,!to!wit:!
"Ergo,!since!respondent!Lonzanida!was!never!a!candidate!for!the!position!of!mayor![of]!San!Antonio,!Zambales,!the!votes!cast!for!
him!should!be!considered!stray!votes.!Consequently,!Intervenor!Antipolo,!who!remains!as!the!sole!candidate!for!the!mayoralty!post!
and!obtained!the!highest!number!of!votes,!should!now!be!proclaimed!as!the!dulyDelected!Mayor!of!San!Antonio,!Zambales.!
Lonzanida's! certificate! of! candidacy! was! cancelled,! because! he! was! ineligible! or! not! qualified! to! run! for! Mayor.! Whether! his!
certificate!of!candidacy!is!cancelled!before!or!after!elections!is!immaterial!because!the!cancellation!on!such!ground!means!he!was!
never!a!candidate!from!the!very!beginning,!his!certificate!of!candidacy!being!void!ab!initio.!There!was!only!one!qualified!candidate!
for!Mayor!in!the!May!2010!elections!D!Antipolo,!who!therefore!received!the!highest!number!of!votes."!
The! Office! of! the! Deputy! Executive! Director! for! Operations! is! hereby! directed! to! constitute! a! Special! Board! of! Canvassers! for! the!
purpose!of!proclaiming!SALMA!OMAR!as!the!winning!candidate!for!mayoralty!position!in!South!Ubian,!TawiDTawi!during!the!May!13,!
2013!elections.!
SO!ORDERED.14!
Thus,!Hayudini!filed!the!instant!petition!for!certiorari!and!prohibition.!
Hayudini!mainly!advances!the!following!arguments:!
A.!
THE!PUBLIC!RESPONDENT!COMMITTED!GRAVE!ABUSE!OF!DISCRETION!AMOUNTING!TO!LACK!OR!IN!EXCESS!OF!JURISDICTION!WHEN!
IT!FAILED!TO!OUTRIGHTLY!DISMISS!THE!INSTANT!PETITION!TO!CANCEL!CERTIFICATE!OF!CANDIDACY!DUE!TO!SUPERVENING!EVENT!
(SPA.! NO.! 13D249(DC)(F),! DESPITE! THE! FAILURE! OF! RESPONDENT! OMAR! TO! COMPLY! WITH! THE! MANDATORY! REQUIREMENTS! OF!
SECTIONS!2!AND!4!OF!THE!COMELEC!RESOLUTION!NO.!9532.!
x!x!x!x!
C.!

THE!PUBLIC!RESPONDENT!COMMITTED!GRAVE!ABUSE!OF!DISCRETION!AMOUNTING!TO!LACK!OR!IN!EXCESS!OF!JURISDICTION!WHEN!
IT!REVISITED!AND!MODIFIED!THE!FINAL!AND!EXECUTORY!RESOLUTION!ISSUED!BY!THE!FIRST!DIVISION!IN!THE!SPA!NO.!13D106(DC)(F).!
III.!
THE!PUBLIC!RESPONDENT!COMMITTED!GRAVE!ABUSE!OF!DISCRETION!AMOUNTING!TO!LACK!OR!IN!EXCESS!OF!JURISDICTION!WHEN!
IT! RESOLVED! TO! CANCEL! PETITIONER! HAYUDINIS! CERTIFICATE! OF! CANDIDACY! AND! DECLARE! HIS! PROCLAMATION! AS! NULL! AND!
VOID.!
x!x!x!x!
L.!
THE!PUBLIC!RESPONDENT!COMMITTED!GRAVE!ABUSE!OF!DISCRETION!AMOUNTING!TO!LACK!OR!IN!EXCESS!OF!JURISDICTION!WHEN!
IT!DECREED!THE!PROCLAMATION!OF!SALMA!A.!OMAR!AS!THE!DULYDELECTED!MAYOR!FOR!SOUTH!UBIAN,!TAWIDTAWI.15!
The!Court!finds!the!petition!to!be!without!merit.!
A!special!civil!action!for!certiorari!under!Rule!65!is!an!independent!action!based!on!thespecific!grounds!and!available!only!if!there!is!
no! appeal! or! any! other! plain,! speedy,! and! adequate! remedy! in! the! ordinary! course! of! law.! It! will! only! prosper! if! grave! abuse! of!
discretion!is!alleged!and!is!actually!proved!to!exist.!Grave!abuse!of!discretion!has!been!defined!as!the!arbitrary!exercise!of!power!
due! to! passion,! prejudice! or! personal! hostility;! or! the! whimsical,! arbitrary,! or! capricious! exercise! of! power! that! amounts! to! an!
evasion!or!refusal!to!perform!a!positive!duty!enjoined!by!law!or!to!act!at!all!in!contemplation!of!law.!For!an!act!to!be!condemned!as!
having! been! done! with! grave! abuse! of! discretion,! such! an! abuse! must! be! patent! and! gross.16!Here,! Hayudini! miserably! failed! to!
prove!that!the!COMELEC!rendered!its!assailed!Resolutions!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion.!
Hayudini! contends! that! the! COMELEC! committed! grave! abuse! of! discretion! when! it! admitted,! and! later! granted,! Omars! petition!
despite!failure!to!comply!with!Sections!2!and!4!of!Rule!23!of!the!COMELEC!Rules!of!Procedure,!as!amended!by!Resolution!No.!9523.!
The!subject!sections!read:!
Section! 2.! Period! to! File! Petition.! ! The! Petition! must! be! filed! within! five! (5)! days! from! the! last! day! for! filing! of! certificate! of!
candidacy;!but!not!later!than!twenty!five!(25)!days!from!the!time!of!filing!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy!subject!of!the!Petition.!In!

case! of! a! substitute! candidate,! the! Petition! must! be! filed! within! five! (5)! days! from! the! time! the! substitute! candidate! filed! his!
certificate!of!candidacy.!
x!x!x!x!
Section!4.!Procedure!to!be!observed.!!Both!parties!shall!observe!the!following!procedure:!
1.!The!petitioner!shall,!before!filing!of!the!Petition,!furnish!a!copy!of!the!Petition,!through!personal!service!to!the!respondent.!In!
cases! where! personal! service! is! not! feasible,! or! the! respondent! refuses! to! receive! the! Petition,! or! the! respondents! whereabouts!
cannot!be!ascertained,!the!petitioner!shall!execute!an!affidavit!stating!the!reason!or!circumstances!therefor!and!resort!to!registered!
mail!as!a!mode!of!service.!The!proof!of!service!or!the!affidavit!shall!be!attached!to!the!Petition!to!be!filed;17!
Here,!Hayudini!filed!his!CoC!on!October!5,!2012,!which!was!also!the!last!day!of!filing!of!CoC!for!the!May!13,!2013!elections.!Omar,!on!
the! other! hand,! filed! the! subject! petition! only! on! March! 26,! 2013.! Under! the! COMELEC! Rules,! a! Petition! to! Deny! Due! Course! or!
Cancel!CoC!must!be!filed!within!five!days!from!the!last!day!for!filing!a!certificate!of!candidacy,!but!not!later!than!twentyDfive!days!
from! the! time! of! filing! of! the! CoC! subject! of! the! petition.! Clearly,! Omars! petition! was! filed! way! beyond! the! prescribed! period.!
Likewise,!he!failed!to!provide!sufficient!explanation!as!to!why!his!petition!was!not!served!personally!to!Hayudini.!
Notwithstanding!the!aforementioned!procedural!missteps,!the!Court!sustains!the!COMELECs!liberal!treatment!of!Omars!petition.!
As! a! general! rule,! statutes! providing! for! election! contests! are! to! be! liberally! construed! in! order! that! the! will! of! the! people! in! the!
choice!of!public!officers!may!not!be!defeated!by!mere!technical!objections.!Moreover,!it!is!neither!fair!nor!just!to!keep!in!office,!for!
an!indefinite!period,!one!whose!right!to!it!is!uncertain!and!under!suspicion.!It!is!imperative!that!his!claim!be!immediately!cleared,!
not!only!for!the!benefit!of!the!winner!but!for!the!sake!of!public!interest,!which!can!only!be!achieved!by!brushing!aside!technicalities!
of! procedure! that! protract! and! delay! the! trial! of! an! ordinary! action.! This! principle! was! reiterated! in! the! cases! of! Tolentino! v.!
Commission! on! Elections18!and! De! Castro! v.! Commission! on! Elections,19!where! the! Court! held! that! "in! exercising! its! powers! and!
jurisdiction,!as!defined!by!its!mandate!to!protect!the!integrity!of!elections,!the!COMELEC!must!not!be!straitjacketed!by!procedural!
rules!in!resolving!election!disputes."20!
Settled!is!the!rule!that!the!COMELEC!Rules!of!Procedure!are!subject!to!liberal!construction.1wphi1!The!COMELEC!has!the!power!to!
liberally! interpret! or! even! suspend! its! rules! of! procedure! in! the! interest! of! justice,! including! obtaining! a! speedy! disposition! of! all!
matters!pending!before!it.!This!liberality!is!for!the!purpose!of!promoting!the!effective!and!efficient!implementation!of!its!objectives!

! ensuring! the! holding! of! free,! orderly,! honest,! peaceful,! and! credible! elections,! as! well! as! achieving! just,! expeditious,! and!
inexpensive! determination! and! disposition! of! every! action! and! proceeding! brought! before! the! COMELEC.! Unlike! an! ordinary! civil!
action,!an!election!contest!is!imbued!with!public!interest.!It!involves!not!only!the!adjudication!of!private!and!pecuniary!interests!of!
rival!candidates,!but!also!the!paramount!need!of!dispelling!the!uncertainty!which!beclouds!the!real!choice!of!the!electorate.!And!the!
tribunal!has!the!corresponding!duty!to!ascertain,!by!all!means!within!its!command,!whom!the!people!truly!chose!as!their!rightful!
leader.21!
Indeed,!Omar!had!previously!filed!a!Petition!to!Deny!Due!Course!or!Cancel!Hayudinis!CoC!on!October!15,!2012,!docketed!as!SPA!No.!
13D106(DC)(F).!This!was!dismissed!on!January!31,!2013,!or!the!same!day!the!MCTC!granted!Hayudinis!petition!to!be!included!in!the!
list!of!voters.!However,!on!March!8,!2013,!the!RTC!reversed!the!MCTC!ruling!and,!consequently,!ordered!the!deletion!of!Hayudinis!
name! in! Barangay! Bintawlans! permanent! list! of! voters.! Said! deletion! was! already! final! and! executory! under! the! law.22!Hayudini,!
however,!still!appealed!the!case!to!the!CA,!which!was!subsequently!denied.!Notably,!thereafter,!he!went!to!the!CA!again,!this!time!
to! file! a! petition! for! certiorari,! docketed! as! CADG.R.! SP! No.! 05499.23!In! a! Resolution! dated! July! 9,! 2013,! the! CA! also! denied! said!
petition!primarily!because!of!Hayudinis!act!of!engaging!in!the!pernicious!practice!of!forum!shopping!by!filing!two!modes!of!appeal!
before!said!court.24!Hence,!by!virtue!of!the!finality!of!said!RTC!decision!deleting!his!name!from!the!voters!list,!Hayudini,!who!had!
been!previously!qualified!under!the!law25!to!run!for!an!elective!position,!was!then!rendered!ineligible.!
Given!the!finality!of!the!RTC!decision,!the!same!should!be!considered!a!valid!supervening!event.!A!supervening!event!refers!to!facts!
and!events!transpiring!after!the!judgment!or!order!had!become!executory.!These!circumstances!affect!or!change!the!substance!of!
the!judgment!and!render!its!execution!inequitable.26!Here,!the!RTCs!March!8,!2013!decision,!ordering!the!deletion!of!Hayudinis!
name!in!the!list!of!voters,!which!came!after!the!dismissal!of!Omars!first!petition,!is!indubitably!a!supervening!event!which!would!
render! the! execution! of! the! ruling! in! SPA! No.! 13D106(DC)(F)! iniquitous! and! unjust.! As! the! COMELEC! aptly! ruled,! the! decision! to!
exclude!Hayudini!was!still!nonDexistent!when!the!COMELEC!first!promulgated!the!Resolution!in!SPA!No.!13D106(DC)(F)!on!January!31,!
2013,! or! when! the! issues! involved! therein! were! passed! upon.27!The! First! Division! even! expressed! that! although! the! Election!
Registration!Board!(ERB)!denied!Hayudinis!application!for!registration,!it!could!not!adopt!the!same!because!it!was!not!yet!final!as!
Hayudini!was!still!to!file!a!Petition!for!Inclusion!before!the!MCTC.28!Thus,!it!is!not!farDfetched!to!say!that!had!this!final!RTC!finding!
been!existent!before,!the!COMELEC!First!Division!could!have!taken!judicial!notice!of!it!and!issued!a!substantially!different!ruling!in!
SPA!No.!13D106(DC)(F).29!
The!same!ruling!adequately!equipped!Omar!with!the!necessary!ground!to!successfully!have!Hayudinis!CoC!struck!down.!Under!the!
rules,!a!statement!in!a!certificate!of!candidacy!claiming!that!a!candidate!is!eligible!to!run!for!public!office!when!in!truth!he!is!not,!is!a!
false!material!representation,!a!ground!for!a!petition!under!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code.!

Sections!74!and!78!read:!
Sec.! 74.! Contents! of! certificate! of! candidacy.! ! The! certificate! of! candidacy! shall! state! that! the! person! filing! it! is! announcing! his!
candidacy!for!the!office!stated!therein!and!that!he!is!eligible!for!said!office;!if!for!Member!of!the!Batasang!Pambansa,!the!province,!
including!its!component!cities,!highly!urbanized!city!or!district!or!sector!which!he!seeks!to!represent;!the!political!party!to!which!he!
belongs;!civil!status;!his!date!of!birth;!residence;!his!post!office!address!for!all!election!purposes;!his!profession!or!occupation;!that!
he!will!support!and!defend!the!Constitution!of!the!Philippines!and!will!maintain!true!faith!and!allegiance!thereto;!that!he!will!obey!
the! laws,! legal! orders,! and! decrees! promulgated! by! the! duly! constituted! authorities;! that! he! is! not! a! permanent! resident! or!
immigrant! to! a! foreign! country;! that! the! obligation! imposed! by! his! oath! is! assumed! voluntarily,! without! mental! reservation! or!
purpose!of!evasion;!and!that!the!facts!stated!in!the!certificate!of!candidacy!are!true!to!the!best!of!his!knowledge.!
x!x!x!x!
Sec.!78.!Petition!to!deny!due!course!to!or!cancel!a!certificate!of!candidacy.!!A!verified!petition!seeking!to!deny!due!course!or!to!
cancel!a!certificate!of!candidacy!may!be!filed!by!the!person!exclusively!on!the!ground!that!any!material!representation!contained!
therein!as!required!under!Section!74!hereof!is!false.!The!petition!may!be!filed!at!any!time!not!later!than!twentyDfive!days!from!the!
time!of!the!filing!of!the!certificate!of!candidacy!and!shall!be!decided,!after!due!notice!and!hearing,!not!later!than!fifteen!days!before!
the!election.!
The! false! representation! mentioned! in! these! provisions! must! pertain! to! a! material! fact,! not! to! a! mere! innocuous! mistake.! A!
candidate!who!falsifies!a!material!fact!cannot!run;!if!he!runs!and!is!elected,!cannot!serve;!in!both!cases,!he!or!she!can!be!prosecuted!
for!violation!of!the!election!laws.!These!facts!pertain!to!a!candidate's!qualification!for!elective!office,!such!as!his!or!her!citizenship!
and!residence.!Similarly,!the!candidate's!status!as!a!registered!voter!falls!under!this!classification!as!it!is!a!legal!requirement!which!
must!be!reflected!in!the!CoC.!The!reason!for!this!is!obvious:!the!candidate,!if!he!or!she!wins,!will!work!for!and!represent!the!local!
government!under!which!he!or!she!is!running.30!Even!the!will!of!the!people,!as!expressed!through!the!ballot,!cannot!cure!the!vice!of!
ineligibility,!especially!if!they!mistakenly!believed,!as!in!the!instant!case,!that!the!candidate!was!qualified.31!
Aside!from!the!requirement!of!materiality,!a!false!representation!under!Section!78!must!consist!of!a!"deliberate!attempt!to!mislead,!
misinform,!or!hide!a!fact!which!would!otherwise!render!a!candidate!ineligible."!Simply!put,!it!must!be!made!with!a!malicious!intent!
to!deceive!the!electorate!as!to!the!potential!candidate's!qualifications!for!public!office.32!

Section!74!requires!the!candidate!to!state!under!oath!in!his!CoC!"that!he!is!eligible!for!said!office."!A!candidate!is!eligible!if!he!has!a!
right!to!run!for!the!public!office.!If!a!candidate!is!not!actually!eligible!because!he!is!not!a!registered!voter!in!the!municipality!where!
he!intends!to!be!elected,!but!still!he!states!under!oath!in!his!certificate!of!candidacy!that!he!is!eligible!to!run!for!public!office,!then!
the!candidate!clearly!makes!a!false!material!representation,!a!ground!to!support!a!petition!under!Section!78.33!It!is!interesting!to!
note! that! Hayudini! was,! in! fact,! initially! excluded! by! the! ERB! as! a! voter.! On! November! 30,! 2012,! the! ERB! issued! a! certificate!
confirming!the!disapproval!of!Hayudinis!petition!for!registration.34!This!is!precisely!the!reason!why!he!needed!to!file!a!Petition!for!
Inclusion!in!the!Permanent!List!of!Voters!in!Barangay!Bintawlan!before!the!MCTC.!Thus,!when!he!stated!in!his!CoC!that!"he!is!eligible!
for!said!office,"!Hayudini!made!a!clear!and!material!misrepresentation!as!to!his!eligibility,!because!he!was!not,!in!fact,!registered!as!a!
voter!in!Barangay!Bintawlan.!
Had!the!COMELEC!not!given!due!course!to!Omars!petition!solely!based!on!procedural!deficiencies,!South!Ubian!would!have!a!mayor!
who!is!not!even!a!registered!voter!in!the!locality!he!is!supposed!to!govern,!thereby!creating!a!ridiculously!absurd!and!outrageous!
situation.!Hence,!the!COMELEC!was!accurate!in!cancelling!Hayudinis!certificate!of!candidacy.!Hayudini!likewise!protests!that!it!was!a!
grave! error! on! the! part! of! the! COMELEC! to! have! declared! his! proclamation! null! and! void! when! no! petition! for! annulment! of! his!
proclamation! was! ever! filed.! What! petitioner! seems! to! miss,! however,! is! that! the! nullification! of! his! proclamation! as! a! winning!
candidate!is!also!a!legitimate!outcome!!a!necessary!legal!consequence!!of!the!cancellation!of!his!CoC!pursuant!to!Section!78.!A!
CoC! cancellation! proceeding! essentially! partakes! of! the! nature! of! a! disqualification! case.35!The! cancellation! of! a! CoC! essentially!
renders!the!votes!cast!for!the!candidate!whose!certificate!of!candidacy!has!been!cancelled!as!stray!votes.36!If!the!disqualification!or!
CoC!cancellation!or!denial!case!is!not!resolved!before!the!election!day,!the!proceedings!shall!continue!even!after!the!election!and!
the! proclamation! of! the! winner.! Meanwhile,! the! candidate! may! be! voted! for! and! even! be! proclaimed! as! the! winner,! but! the!
COMELEC's!jurisdiction!to!deny!due!course!and!cancel!his!or!her!CoC!continues.!This!rule!likewise!applies!even!if!the!candidate!facing!
disqualification!has!already!taken!his!oath!of!office.37!The!only!exception!to!this!rule!is!in!the!case!of!congressional!and!senatorial!
candidates!where!the!COMELEC!ipso!jure!loses!jurisdiction!in!favor!of!either!the!Senate!or!the!House!of!Representatives!Electoral!
Tribunal!after!the!candidates!have!been!proclaimed,!taken!the!proper!oath,!and!also!assumed!office.38!
It!bears!stressing!that!one!of!the!requirements!for!a!mayoralty!candidate!is!that!he!must!be!a!resident!of!the!city!or!municipality!
where!he!intends!to!be!elected.!Thus,!under!Section!74!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!it!is!required!that!a!candidate!must!certify!
under! oath! that! he! is! eligible! for! the! public! office! he! seeks! election.! In! this! case,! when! petitioner! stated! in! his! CoC! that! he! is! a!
resident!of!Barangay!Bintawlan,!South!Ubian,!Tawi!Tawi!and!eligible!for!a!public!office,!but!it!turned!out!that!he!was!declared!to!be!a!
nonDresident!thereof!in!a!petition!for!his!inclusion!in!the!list!of!registered!voters,!he!therefore!committed!a!false!representation!in!
his!CoC!which!pertained!to!a!material!fact!which!is!a!ground!for!the!cancellation!of!his!CoC!under!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!
Code.! Petitioner's! ineligibility! for! not! being! a! resident! of! the! place! he! sought! election! is! not! a! ground! for! a! petition! for!

disqualification,! since! the! grounds! enumerated! under! Section! 6839!of! the! Omnibus! Election! Code! specifically! refer! to! the!
commission!of!prohibited!acts,!and!possession!of!a!permanent!resident!status!in!a!foreign!country.!
As!held!in!Aratea!v.!COMELEC,40!which!is!a!case!for!cancellation!of!CoC!under!Section!78!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!a!cancelled!
certificate!of!candidacy!void!ab!initio!cannot!give!rise!to!a!valid!candidacy,!and!much!less!to!valid!votes.!Whether!a!certificate!of!
candidacy!is!cancelled!before!or!after!the!elections!is!immaterial,!because!the!cancellation!on!such!ground!means!he!was!never!a!
candidate!from!the!very!beginning,!his!certificate!of!candidacy!being!void!ab!initio.!We!then!found!that!since!the!winning!mayoralty!
candidate's!certificate!of!candidacy!was!void!ab!initio,!he!was!never!a!candidate!at!all!and!all!his!votes!were!considered!stray!votes,!
and!thus,!proclaimed!the!second!placer,!the!only!qualified!candidate,!who!actually!garnered!the!highest!number!of!votes,!for!the!
position!of!Mayor.!
We!find!the!factual!mileu!of!the!Aratea!case!applicable!in!the!instant!case,!since!this!is!also!a!case!for!a!petition!to!deny!due!course!
or! cancel! a! certificate! of! candidacy.! Since! Hayudini! was! never! a! valid! candidate! for! the! position! of! the! Municipal! Mayor! of! South!
Ubian,!TawiDTawi,!the!votes!cast!for!him!should!be!considered!stray!votes,!Consequently,!the!COMELEC!properly!proclaimed!Salma!
Omar,!who!garnered!the!highest!number!of!votes!in!the!remaining!qualified!candidates!for!the!mayoralty!post,!as!the!dulyDelected!
Mayor!of!South!Ubian,!Tawi!Tawi.!
Codilla!v.!De!Venecia!case!has!no!application!in!this!case,!since!it!dealt!with!a!petition!for!disqualification!under!Section!68!of!the!
Omnibus!Election!Code!and!not!a!petition!to!deny!due!course!or!cancel!certificate!of!candidacy!under!Section!78!which!is!the!case!at!
bar.!
Finally,! contrary! to! Hayudini's! belief,! the! will! of! the! electorate! is! still! actually! respected! even! when! the! votes! for! the! ineligible!
candidate!are!disregarded.!The!votes!cast!in!favor!of!the!ineligible!candidate!are!not!considered!at!all!in!determining!the!winner!of!
an!election!for!these!do!not!constitute!the!sole!and!total!expression!of!the!sovereign!voice.!On!the!other!hand,!those!votes!for!the!
eligible!and!legitimate!candidates!form!an!integral!part!of!said!voice,!which!must!equally!be!given!due!respect!,!if!not!more.41!
WHEREFORE,!the!petition!is!DISMISSED.!The!COMELEC!Resolutions!dated!June!20,!2013!and!July!10,!2013!are!hereby!AFFIRMED.!No!
pronouncement!as!to!costs.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!