DE LEON vs Esguerra - Case Digest PDF

Preview

Summary

Download DE LEON vs Esguerra - Case Digest PDF

Description

DE LEON petitioner vs. ESGUERRA respondent G. R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987 MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

PRINCIPLE: Section 27, Art. 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that upon ratification, it shall immediately take effect which then supersedes Section 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution. With regard to the term of office provision of Barangay Election Act of 1982, since it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution (Section 8, Art. 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the term of office of barangay officials has not yet been determined by law), therefore, it shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked according to Section 3, Art. 18 of the 1987 Constitution. 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 or the Barangay Election Act of 1982. On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M, de Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 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." Petitioners: o Filed a Writ of Prohibition and pray that the subject Memoranda be declared null and void and that the respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions o Maintain that under Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982, their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified," or up to June 7, 1988 o Argue that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. (Sec. 3, Art. 18, 1987 Constitution) Respondents: o Sec. 2, Art. 3, Provisional Constitution - 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. o As per the foregoing provision, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that the only reason why the petitioners continued in office because any of the events mentioned in the provision has not yet occurred. o The provision in the Barangay Election Act with regard to their term of 6 years must be considered repealed due to its inconsistency with the aforementioned provision of

the Provisional Constitution which must still be in place since there has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials. ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace the petitioners in the Memoranda issued was VALIDLY made during the one-year period which ended in February 25, 1987. RULING: NO. The designation of respondents to replace the petitioners in the Memoranda issued by the respondent was NOT VALID and declared to be of NO LEGAL FORCE because while February 8, 1987 is still within the one-year period of the deadline of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution, when the 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987, the aforementioned provision of the Provisional Constitution was already deemed to have been OVERTAKEN by Sec. 27, Art. 18 of the 1987 Constitution. 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. Therefore, upon the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the Provisional Constitution has been SUPERSEDED and deemed INOPERATIVE. Hence, the respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. The Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure as provided by the Barangay Election Act of 1982 and the 1987 Constitution which ensures the autonomy of local governments and of political subdivisions of which the barangays form a part. Sec. 8, Article 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years. So, until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law, the term of office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern. Since the Court finds no inconsistencies between the term of 6 years for elective Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution, the same shall still be considered as OPERATIVE, pursuant to Sec. 3, Article 18 of the 1987 Constitution. WHEREFORE, (1) The Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Governor on February 8, 1987 designating respondents as the Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen, respectively, of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, are both declared to be of no legal force and effect; and (2) the Writ of Prohibition is granted enjoining respondents perpetually from proceeding with the ouster/take-over of petitioners' positions subject of this Petition. Without costs....