DE LEON v. ESGUERRA Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal.
The designation made by the
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 and they prayed 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 SC disagreed. It
ruled that 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
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.
Whether the memorandum is null and void YES
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 The cut-off started on February 11, 1987, the date the same
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 six (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.
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.
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
seven 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.