DE LEON v.
ESGUERRA Whether the memorandum is null and void– YES
August 31, 1987|Melancio-Herrera, J. | Decentralization, autonomy
Digester: Yee, Jenine
SUMMARY: Petitioners won the barangay elections. Pursuant to the Barangay
Election Act, their terms of office shall be up to June 7, 1988. However, on February 8,
1987, through a memorandum, respondent OIC Governor replaced petitioners with the
other co-respondents. The memorandum was antedated Dec. 1, 1986. Petitioners filed
the original action to enjoin respondents from replacing them, praying that the
memorandum be declared null and void. Respondents argue that Section 2, Art III of
the Provisional Constitution provides that all elective officials shall continue until
otherwise provided by appointment, if such appointment is made within Feb 25, 1987.
The Supreme Court disagreed. While February 8, 1987 is within the one year deadline
provided under the provisional constitution, said provision already became inoperative
by virtue of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which took effect on February 2,
1987. Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, petitioners must now be held to have acquired
security of tenure.
DOCTRINE: The 1987 Constitution ensures the autonomy of local governments and
of political subdivisions of which the barangays form a part, and limits the President's
power to "general supervision" over local governments.
FACTS:
 In the barangay elections held on May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was
elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta.
Ana, Jose C. Tolentino, Rogelio J. de la Rosa and Jose M. Resurreccion, as
Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 222, otherwise known as the Barangay Election Act of 1982.
 On Feb 8, 1987, respondent OIC Governor signed a Memorandum and antedated
Dec. 1, 1986 designating respondents Remigio M. Tigas, Ricardo Z. Lacanienta
Teodoro V. Medina, Roberto S. Paz and Teresita L. Tolentino as members of the
Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.
 On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M. de Leon received a Memorandum,
which was antedated Dec. 1, 1986 and signed by respondent OIC Governor
Benjamin Esguerra designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay
Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. The designation made by the OIC
Governor was "by authority of the Minister of Local Government."
 That the Memoranda had been antedated is evidenced by the Affidavit of
respondent OIC Governor
 Hence, the petition praying that the Memorandum be declared null and void and
that the respondents be prohibited from taking their positions
RULING: Memorandum void. Respondents enjoined from taking the positions of
petitioners.
 RESPONDENTS: The Barangay Election Act has been repealed for being
inconsistent with Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution. Also,
petitioners continued in office up until Feb 9, 1987, because the terms of their
offices (6 years) were abolished by the said provision.
o SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees
under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until
otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the
designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if
such appointment is made within a period of one year from
February 25,1986.
 COURT: The provision cited by the respondent OIC Governor had already been
superseded by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution by the time he
sent the Memorandum to petitioners.
 Examining the said provision, there should be no question that petitioners, as
elective officials under the 1973 Constitution, may continue in office but should
vacate their positions upon the occurrence of any of the events mentioned.
- Since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there has been no
proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay
officials.
 Thus, the issue for resolution is whether or not the designation of respondents to
replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on
February 25, 1987.
- Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor, we hold that
February 8, 1987, should be considered as the effective date of replacement
and not December 1,1986 to which it was ante dated, in keeping with the
dictates of justice.
 But while February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one-year deadline,
the aforequoted provision in the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to
have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution
reading.
SECTION 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose
and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.
 The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that
date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been
superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Governor could no
longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the elective
positions occupied by petitioners.
 Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure specially
considering that the Barangay Election Act of 1982 declares it "a policy of the State
to guarantee and promote the autonomy of the barangays to ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities. Similarly, the 1987 Constitution
ensures the autonomy of local governments and of political subdivisions of
which the barangays form a part (Article 11, Section 25 and Article X,
 Sections 1, 2, 14, among others.), and limits the President's power to
"general supervision" over local governments (Article X, Section 4).
- Relevantly, Section 8, Article X of the same 1987 Constitution further provides
in part: Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay
officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years ...
- Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law,
therefore, the term of office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election
Act of 1982 should still govern.
 Contrary to the stand of respondents, we find nothing inconsistent between the
term of six (6) years for elective Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution, and
the same should, therefore, be considered as still operative, pursuant to Section 3,
Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, reading:
 Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations letters of
instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent, with this Constitution
shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
CRUZ, J., concurring.
 The local OICs may no longer be summarily replaced, having acquired security of
tenure under the new Constitution. Our difference is that whereas I would make
that right (to security of tenure) commence on February 25, 1987, after the deadline
set by the Freedom Constitution, Justice Herrera would opt for February 2, 1987,
when the new Constitution was ratified. I yield to that better view and agree with
her ponencia completely.
SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting.
 (Section 2, Art III of the Provisional Constitution) was cut short by the ratification
of the 1987 Constitution. He believes the cut-off period did not begin on Feb 2,
1987, the plebiscite day. The cut-off started on February 11, 1987, the date the
same was proclaimed ratified pursuant to Proclamation No. 58 of the President of
the Philippines. The challenged dismissals done on February 8, 1987 were
valid, the 1987 Constitution not being then as yet in force.
 Relies on the language of the 1987 Charter itself, thus:
Sec. 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall
supersede all previous Constitutions.
o The Constitution takes effect on the date its ratification shall have
been ascertained, and not at the time the people cast their votes to
approve or reject it. For it cannot be logically said that Constitution
was ratified during such a plebiscite, when the will of the people as of
that time, had not, and could not have been, vet determined.
 Other than that, pragmatic considerations compel me to take the view.
o I have no doubt that between February 2, and February 11, 1987 the
government performed acts that would have been valid under the
Provisional Constitution but would otherwise have been void under
the 1987 Charter.
o I recall, in particular, the appointments of some 7 Court of Appeals
Justices, 71 provincial fiscals, and 55 city fiscals the President
reportedly extended on February 2, 1987. All appointments require a
prior endorsement by the JBC under the 1987 Constitution
 Since 1973, moreover, we have invariably reckoned the effectivity of the
Constitution as well as the amendments thereto from the date it is proclaimed
ratified. That a Constitution or amendments thereto take effect upon proclamation
of their ratification and not at the time of the plebiscite is a view that is not peculiar
to the Marcos era. He cites numerous examples.
- In Magtoto v. Manguera, the SC held that the 1973 Constitution became in force
and effect on January 17, 1973, the date Proclamation No. 1102, was issued
and this was so notwithstanding Section 16, Article XVII, of the 1973
Constitution, a similar provision as that cited by the majority, thus:
o SEC. 16. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the
purpose and, except as herein provided, shall supersede the
Constitution of nineteen-hundred and thirty- five and all
amendments thereto.
TEEHANKEE, CJ., concurring:
 The main issue resolved in the judgment at bar is whether the 1987 Constitution
took effect on February 2, 1987, the date that the plebiscite for its ratification was
held or whether it took effect on February 11, 1987, the date its ratification was
proclaimed per Proclamation No. 58 of the President of the Philippines, Corazon
C. Aquino.
 The thrust of the dissent is that the Constitution should be deemed to "take effect
on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained and not at the time the
people cast their votes to approve or reject it." This view was actually proposed at
the Constitutional Commission deliberations, but was WITHDRAWN by its
proponent in the face of the "overwhelming" contrary view that the Constitution
"will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite."
 First, the record of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Commission
fully supports the judgment. It shows that the clear, unequivocal and express intent
of the Constitutional Conunission in unanimously approving the aforequoted
Section 27 of Transitory Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution was that "the act
of ratification is the act of voting by the people. So that is the date of the
ratification" and that "the canvass thereafter [of the votes] is merely the
mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and
the proclamation of the President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of
an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution
when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite."
 Second, while the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring
on March 25, 1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised, this
period was shortened by the ratification and effectivity on February 2, 1987 of the
Constitution. Had the intention of the framers of the Constitution been otherwise,
they would have so provided for in the Transitory Article, as indeed they provided
 for multifarious transitory provisions in twenty six sections of Article XVIII, e.g.
extension of the six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President to
noon of June 30, 1992 for purposes of synchronization of elections, the continued
exercise of legislative powers by the incumbent President until the convening of the
first Congress, etc.
 A final note of clarification, as to the statement in the dissent that "the
appointments of some seven Court of Appeals Justices, 71 provincial fiscals and 55
city fiscals reported extended (by) the President on February 2, 1987 . . . could be
open to serious questions,". It should be stated for the record that the reported
date of the appointments, February 2, 1987, is incorrect. The official records of the
Court show that the appointments of the seven Court of Appeals Justices were
transmitted to this Court on February 1, 1987 and they were all appointed on or
before January 31, 1987. Hence, there was no need for endorsement.