Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-1560 October 25, 1949

DEMETRIA ESTRADA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ULDARICO CASEDA, defendant-appellee. San Juan, Africe, Yquez and Benedicto and Enrique M. Fernando for appellant. Jose E. Erfe for appellee.

TUASON, J.: This case is before this Court for review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila reversing the judgment of the municipal court and declaring that "the plaintiff may not eject the defendant from the premises in question." It appears that on September 5, 1945, plaintiff brought this suit, for unlawful detainer, alleging that defendant leased from her a part of a dwelling at a monthly rental of P26; that on August 11, 1945, plaintiff notified defendant in writing to vacate the premises under lease, because one of her married daughters was going to occupy them by the first of the following month; that defendant refused to leave. On October 13, 1945, Judge Mariano Nable, then of the municipal court, gave judgment for plaintiff with order for defendant to pay the rent from October 1, 1945, at the rate of P26 a month. On the case being appealed to the Court of First Instance, defendant filed an answer alleging as special defense, among others not necessary to the solution of this appeal, "that the main motive of the plaintiff in bringing the present action is to oust the defendant and lease the same premises to third parties who are willing to pay the black market rental." In reversing the judgment of the municipal court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Rafael Dinglasa presiding, said that "Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended only provides three grounds for rejecting a lessee or occupant from a building destined solely for dwelling, namely (1) for willful and deliberate non-payment of rents, (2) when the lessor has to occupy the building leased, and (3) when the lessee shall have subleased the building or any part thereof as dwelling or for dwelling purpose without the written consent of the proprietor." None of these conditions, according to the court, was alleged much less proved. The court correctly

held that the fact that the premises under lease were needed by plaintiff's married daughter was not comprehended in the second ground. The above requirements were provided in Commonwealth Act No. 689, which was approved October 15, 1945. Section 14 of that Act provided that the same "shall be in force for a period of two years after its approval." Republic Act No. 66, approved October 18, 1946, amended section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 689 so as to read as follows: "Section 14. This Act shall be in force for a period of four years after its approval." When did this four-year period commence to run? Is the present lease still within his period? An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as if the original statute had been repealed, and a new and independent act in the amended form had been adopted in its stead; or, as frequently stated by the courts, so far as regards any action after the adoption of the amendment, as if the statute had been originally enacted in its amended form. The amendment becomes a part of the original statute as if it had always been contained therein, unless such amendment involves the abrogation of contractual relations between the state and others. Where an amendment leaves certain portions of the original act unchanged, such portions are continued in force, with the same meaning and effect they had before the amendment. So where an amendatory act provides that are existing statute shall be amended to read as recited in the amendatory act, such portions of the existing law as are retained, either literally or substantially, are regarded as a continuation of the existing law, and not as a new enactment. (59 C. J., 1096, 1097.)lawphi1.nt In accordance with this rule, the provision of Republic Act No. 66 amending section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 689, related back to, and should be computed from the date of the approval of the amended act, that is October 15, 1945. The period as thus construed expired on October 15, 1949. The judgment of Judge Dinglasan was correct, but, the period reckoned by the trial court being now over, our decision is that judgment shall be rendered ejecting defendant from the house described in the complaint and ordering him to pay rent at the rate of P26 a month from October 1, 1945. It is so ordered, without costs. Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur. Moran, C.J., Mr. Justice Bengzon voted in conformity with this decision. Separate Opinions PADILLA, J., concurring: I concur in the result. Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, cannot be given retroactive effect. The cause of action in the case at bar arose before the passage of the Acts.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-38736 May 21, 1984 FELIPE G. TAC-AN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ELEUTERIO ACOPIADO, MAXIMINO ACOPIADO, the SPOUSES JESUS PAGHASIAN and PILAR LIBETARIO, respondents. Liliano B. Neri for petitioner. Vic T. Lacaya for private respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.: The petitioner, Felipe G. Tac-An, is a lawyer whose services were engaged by the brothers Eleuterio Acopiado and Maximino Acopiado who were accused of frustrated murder and theft of large cattle before the Municipal Court of New Pian, Zamboanga del Norte in March, 1960. On April 4, 1960, Tac-An caused a document entitled, "Deed of Quitclaim" to be thumb-marked by the Acopiado brothers whereby for the sum of P1,200.00 representing his fees as their lawyer in the criminal cases, they conveyed to him a parcel of land with an area of three hectares. The document was acknowledged before Notary Public Pacifico Cimafranca on the same date who explained its contents to the Acopiados. On April 6, 1960, or two days after the execution of the deed, the Acopiados told Tac-An that they were terminating his services because their wives and parents did not agree that the land be given to pay for his services. They also said that they had hired another lawyer, a relative, to defend them. But Tac-An continued to represent them. In the case for frustrated murder, the Acopiados were acquitted. The cases for theft of large cattle were dismissed due to the desistance of the complainants. On April 2, 1961, Eleuterio sold his share of the land previously conveyed to Tac-An to Jesus Paghasian and Pilar Libetario but the latter did not take possession thereof. In June, 1964, Tac-An appointed Irineo Villejo, a barrio captain, as his overseer in the land. On July 2, 1964, Tac-An also secured the approval of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte to the Deed of Quitclaim. And on October 7, 1964, Tac-An filed a complaint against the Acopiado brothers, Paghasian and Libetario in the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte. He prayed that

he be declared the owner of the land; that the sale made in favor of Paghasian and owner Libetario be annulled; and that he be paid damages, attorney's fees, etc. The Court of First Instance decided in favor of Tac-An whereupon the Acopiados, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals voided the transfer of the land to Tac-An but held that for his services in the criminal cases he was entitled to the agreed upon amount of P1,200.00. The judgment of the Court of Appeals reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside. In lieu thereof, another one is rendered ordering the defendants Acopiados to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,200.00 with interest at a legal rate from the date of the finality of this judgment until full payment thereof. No pronouncement as to costs. (Rollo, pp. 40-41.) Petitioner Tac-An prays that the decision of the Court of Appeals be set aside and that the decision of the Court of First Instance be upheld instead. The petition is not impressed with merit. The Court of Appeals found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers fully understood the tenor of the Deed of Quitclaim which they executed. But the Court of Appeals also found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers are Non-Christians, more specifically Subanons, and that each is married to a Subanon. And because they are Non-Christians, the Court of Appeals applied Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu which reads as follows: Sec. 145. Contracts with Non-Christians requisites. -- Save and except contracts of sale or barter of personal property and contracts of personal service comprehended in chapter seventeen hereof no contract or agreement shall be made in the Department by any person with any Moro or other non-Christian tribe or portion thereof the Department or with any individual Moro or other nonChristian inhabitants of the same for the payment or delivery of money or other things of value in present or in prospective, or in the manner affecting or relating to any real property, unless such contract or agreement be executed and approved as follows: xxx xxx xxx (b) It shall be executed before a judge of a court of record, justice or auxilliary justice of the peace, or notary public, and shall bear the approval of the provincial governor wherein the same was executed or his representative duly authorized in writing for such purpose, indorsed upon it. It should be stated that under Section 146 of the same Code, contracts or agreements made in violation of Sec. 145 shall be "null and void." It should be recalled that on July 2, 1964, Tac-An secured the approval of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte to the Deed of Quitclaim and that should have satisfied the requirement of Sec. 145 of the Administrative Code for Mindanao and Sulu. But it appears that

on April 12, 1965, while Tac-An's suit was pending in the trial court, the Governor of Zamboanga del Norte revoked his approval for the reasons stated therein. The petitioner now asserts that the revocation of the approval which had been given by the Provincial Governor has no legal effect and cannot affect his right to the land which had already vested. But as Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, with Justices Mateo Canonoy and Ameurfina M. Herrera concurring, said: The approval by Provincial Governor Felipe Azcuna appearing on the face of the Deed of Quitclaim (Exh. "E ") made on July 2, 1964 may no longer be relied upon by the plaintiff in view of the revocation thereof by the same official on April 12, 1965 (Exh. 4). The revocation was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was obtained thru a false representation to the effect that the alleged transaction was legal and voluntary when in truth and in fact, as found out later, the said parcel of land was the subject matter of a court litigation; and, moreover, the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation or ratification of the alleged deed of quitclaim. The fact that the revocation was made after the filing of instant action on October 10, 1964 does not vitiate the aforesaid action of the Provincial Governor. Significantly, no attempt was made to disprove the truth of the reasons stated in the certificate of revocation (Exh. 4). (Rollo, p. 37.) The petitioner also argues that the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu was repealed on June 19, 1965 by Republic Act No, 4252, hence the approval of the Provincial Governor became unnecessary. Suffice it to say that at times material to the case, i.e. when the Deed of Quitclaim was executed, when the approval by the Provincial Governor was given and when the approval was revoked, Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect and since they were substantive in nature the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect. It should also be stated that the land in question must be presumed to be conjugal in nature and since the spouses of the Acopiado brothers did not consent to its transfer to the petitioner, the transaction was at least voidable. WHEREFORE finding the petition to be lacking in merit, the same is hereby dismissed with costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur. Escolin, J., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. Nos. 60225-26 May 8, 1992

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ZAIN B. ANGAS, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, HADJI DALUMA KINIDAR, EBRA ALI and/or GASNARA ALI (intervenors), MANGORSI CASAN, CASNANGAN BATUGAN, PUNDAMARUG ATOCAL, PASAYOD PADO, DIMAAMPAO BAUTE, CASNANGAN BAUTE, DIMAPORO SUBANG, TAMBILAWAN OTE, MANISUN ATOCAL, MASACAL TOMIARA (In Civil Case No. 2277) and LACSAMAN BATUGAN, and/or GUIMBA SHIPPING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAGANCONG DIGAYAN, MOCTARA LAMPACO, LAMPACO PASANDALAN, DIMAPORO SUBANG, HADJI DALUMA KINIDAR, DIMAAMPAO BAUTE, PANGONOTAN COSNA TAGOL, SALACOP DIMACALING, HADJI SITTIE SOHRA LINANG BATARA, BERTUDAN PIMPING and/or CADUROG PIMPING, BUTUAN TAGOL, DISANGCOPAN MARABONG, and HADJI SALIC SAWA (In Civil Case No. 2248), respondents. Lucio C. Badelles for petitioner. Dimnatang Saro for private respondents. PARAS, J.: The basic issue in this original action for certiorari and mandamus filed by the National Power Corporation is whether or not, in the computation of the legal rate of interest on just compensation for expropriated lands, the law applicable is Article 2209 of the Civil Code which prescribes a 6% legal interest rate or Central Bank Circular No. 416 which fixed the legal interest rate at 12% per annum. Pending consideration of this code on the merits, petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order to restrain or enjoin the respondent judge of the lower court from enforcing the herein assailed orders and from further acting or proceeding with Civil Case Nos. 2248 and 2277. The following are the antecedents of the case: On April 13, 1974 and December 3, 1974, petitioner National Power Corporation, a governmentowned and controlled corporation and the agency through which the government undertakes the on-going infrastructure and development projects throughout the country, filed two complaints for eminent domain against private respondents with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Lanao del Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 2248 and Civil Case No. 2277, respectively. The complaint which sought to expropriate certain specified lots situated at Limogao, Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur was for the purpose of the development of hydro-electric

power and production of electricity as well as the erection of such subsidiary works and constructions as may be necessarily connected therewith. Both cases were jointly tried upon agreement of the parties. After responsive pleadings were filed and issues joined, a series of hearings before court-designated commissioners were held. On June 15, 1979, a consolidated decision in Civil Cases Nos. 2248 and 2277 was rendered by the lower court, declaring and confirming that the lots mentioned and described in the complaints have entirely been lawfully condemned and expropriated by the petitioner, and ordering the latter to pay the private respondents certain sums of money as just compensation for their lands expropriated "with legal interest thereon . . . until fully paid." Two consecutive motions for reconsideration of the said consolidated decision were filed by the petitioner. The same were denied by the respondent court. Petitioner did not appeal the aforesaid consolidated decision, which became final and executory. Thus, on May 16, 1980, one of the private respondents (Sittie Sohra Batara) filed an ex-parte motion for the execution of the June 15, 1979 decision, praying that petitioner be directed to pay her the unpaid balance of P14,300.00 for the lands expropriated from her, including legal interest which she computed at 6% per annum. The said motion was granted by the lower court. Thereafter, the lower court directed the petitioner to deposit with its Clerk of Court the sums of money as adjudged in the joint decision dated June 15, 1979. Petitioner complied with said order and deposited the sums of money with interest computed at 6% per annum. On February 10, 1981, one of the private respondents (Pangonatan Cosna Tagol), through counsel, filed with the trial court an ex-parte motion in Civil Case No. 2248 praying, for the first time, that the legal interest on the just compensation awarded to her by the court be computed at 12% per annum as allegedly "authorized under and by virtue of Circular No. 416 of the Central Bank issued pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 116 and in a decision of the Supreme Court that legal interest allowed in the judgment of the courts, in the absence of express contract, shall be computed at 12% per annum." (Brief for Respondents, p. 3) On February 11, 1981, the lower court granted the said motion allowing 12% interest per annum. (Annex L, Petition). Subsequently, the other private respondents filed motions also praying that the legal interest on the just compensation awarded to them be computed at 12% per annum, on the basis of which the lower court issued on March 10, 1981 and August 28, 1981 orders bearing similar import. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the lower court's last order dated August 28, 1981, alleging that the main decision had already become final and executory with its compliance of depositing the sums of money as just compensation for the lands condemned, with legal interest at 6% per annum; that the said main decision can no longer be modified or changed by the lower court; and that Presidential Decree No. 116 is not applicable to this case because it is Art. 2209 of the Civil Code which applies.

On January 25, 1982, the lower court denied petitioner's, motion for reconsideration, stating that the rate of interest at the time of the promulgation of the June 15, 1981 decision is that prescribed by Central Bank Circular No. 416 issued pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 116, which is 12% per annum, and that it did not modify or change but merely amplified its order of August 28, 1981 in the determination of the legal interest. Petitioner brings the case to Us for a determination of which legal interest is applicable to the transaction in question. Central Bank Circular No. 416 reads: By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act No. 2655, as amended, otherwise known as the "Usury Law," the Monetary Board, in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve per cent (12%) per annum. It is clear from the foregoing provision that the Central Bank circular applies only to loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. This has already been settled in several cases decided by this Court. Private respondents, however, take exception to the inclusion of the term "judgments" in the said circular, claiming that such term refers to any judgment directing the payment of legal interest, which term includes the questioned judgment of the lower court in the case at bar. Private respondents' contention is bereft of merit. The term "judgments" as used in Section 1 of the Usury Law, as well as in Central Bank Circular No. 416, should be interpreted to mean only judgments involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, following the principle of ejusdem generis. Under this doctrine, where general terms follow the designation of particular things or classes of persons or subjects, the general term will be construed to comprehend those things or persons of the same class or of the same nature as those specifically enumerated (Crawford, Statutory Construction, p. 191; Go Tiaco vs. Union Ins. Society of Canton, 40 Phil. 40; Mutuc vs. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228) The purpose of the rule on ejusdem generis is to give effect to both the particular and general words, by treating the particular words as indicating the class and the general words as including all that is embraced in said class, although not specifically named by the particular words. This is justified on the ground that if the lawmaking body intended the general terms to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would have not made an enumeration of particular subjects but would have used only general terms (2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., pp. 395-400). Applying the said rule on statutory construction to Central Bank Circular No. 416, the general term "judgments" can refer only to judgments in cases involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. As significantly laid down by this Court in the case of Reformina vs. Tomol, 139 SCRA 260: The judgments spoken of and referred to are judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. Any other kind of monetary judgment which

has nothing to do with, nor involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits does not fall within the coverage of the said law for it is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank. The Monetary Board may not tread on forbidden grounds. It cannot rewrite other laws. That function is vested solely with the legislative authority. It is axiomatic in legal hermeneutics that statutes should be construed as a whole and not as a series of disconnected articles and phrases. In the absence of a clear contrary intention, words and phrases in statutes should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. A word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may thus be modified or restricted by the latter. Obviously, therefore, Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, and not Central Bank Circular No. 416, is the law applicable to the case at bar. Said law reads: Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs a delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum. The Central Bank circular applies only to loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits and to judgments involving such loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. This is evident not only from said circular but also from Presidential Decree No. 116, which amended Act No. 2655, otherwise known as the Usury Law. On the other hand, Art. 2209 of the Civil Code applies to transactions requiring the payment of indemnities as damages, in connection with any delay in the performance of the obligation arising therefrom other than those covering loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. In the case at bar, the transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment thereof. Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the joint judgment of the lower court sought to be enforced in this case is interest by way of damages, and not by way of earnings from loans, etc. Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply. As for private respondents' argument that Central Bank Circular No. 416 impliedly repealed or modified Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, suffice it to state that repeals or even amendments by implication are not favored if two laws can be fairly reconciled. The Courts are slow to hold that one statute has repealed another by implication, and they will not make such an adjudication if they can refrain from doing so, or if they can arrive at another result by any construction which is just and reasonable. Besides, the courts will not enlarge the meaning of one act in order to decide that it repeals another by implication, nor will they adopt an interpretation leading to an adjudication of repeal by implication unless it is inevitable and a clear and explicit reason therefor can be adduced. (82 C.J.S. 479-486). In this case, Central Bank Circular No. 416 and Art. 2209 of the Civil Code contemplate different situations and apply to different transactions. In transactions involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, as well as judgments

relating to such loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, the Central Bank circular applies. It is only in such transactions or judgments where the Presidential Decree allowed the Monetary Board to dip its fingers into. On the other hand, in cases requiring the payment of indemnities as damages, in connection with any delay in the performance of an obligation other than those involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, Art. 2209 of the Civil Code applies. For the Court, this is the most fair, reasonable, and logical interpretation of the two laws. We do not see any conflict between Central Bank Circular No. 416 and Art. 2209 of the Civil Code or any reason to hold that the former has repealed the latter by implication. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders promulgated on February 11, 1981, March 10, 1981, August 28, 1981 and January 25, 1982 (as to the recomputation of interest at 12% per annum) are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. It is hereby declared that the computation of legal interest at 6% per annum is the correct and valid legal interest allowed in payments of just compensation for lands expropriated for public use to herein private respondents by the Government through the National Power Corporation. The injunction heretofore granted is hereby made permanent. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31711 September 30, 1971 ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS as Mayor of the City of Manila and MANUEL D. LAPID, petitioners-appellants, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO as Civil Service Commissioner, EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ as Secretary of Finance, JOSE R. GLORIA as Acting Asst. City Treasurer of Manila, and HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ as Presiding Judge of Branch V, Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents-appellees. Gregorio A. Ejercito and Restituto R. Villanueva for petitioners-appellants. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor General Hector C. Fule and Solicitor Santiago M. Kapunan for respondents-appellees.

FERNANDO, J.: Petitioner Antonio J. Villegas, in this appeal from a decision of the lower court dismissing a special civil action for prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus would lay claim as the Mayor of the City of Manila to the power of appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer to which office the other petitioner, Manuel D. Lapid, was by him named even if under its Charter 1 such a prerogative is expressly vested in the President of the Philippines. 2 He would invoke a provision in the Decentralization Act to the effect that all "other employees, except teachers, paid out of provincial, city or municipal general funds, and other local funds shall, subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, be appointed by the provincial governor, city or municipal mayor upon recommendation of the office head concerned." 3 He is not deterred by the rather general and in explicit character of such statutory language as he contends for a construction rather generous, if not latitudinarian, in scope purportedly in consonance with the avowed purpose of the Act of enlarging boundaries of local autonomy. Respondent Abelardo Subido, who was proceeded against as Commissioner of the Civil Service, 4 takes a stand diametrically opposite not only because there is no legal basis for such a claim in the light of what is expressly ordained in the City Charter but also because such an interpretation of the provision related upon would disregard the well-settled doctrine that implied repeals are not favored. The lower court, in a well-written decision by the Honorable Conrado M. Vasquez, accepted such a view. After a careful study of the matter, we cannot discern any error. We affirm. The facts as found by the lower court follows: "In a letter dated June 3, 1968, respondent Eduardo Z. Romualdez, Secretary of Finance, authorized respondent Jose R. Gloria of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968, vice Felino Fineza who retired from the government service on May 31, 1968. In administrative Order No. 40, series of 1968, dated June 17, 1968, petitioner Antonio J. Villegas, Mayor of the City of Manila, directed respondent Gloria to desist and refrain from exercising the duties and functions of the Assistant City Treasurer,' on the ground that respondent Romualdez "is not empowered to make such designation." On January 1, 1969, Mayor Villegas, appointed petitioner Manuel D. Lapid, chief of the cash division of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila, as Assistant City Treasurer. In a 1st endorsement dated February 14, 1969, respondent Abelardo Subido, Commissioner of Civil Service disapproved the appointment of Lapid, basing his action, on an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated September 19, 1968 to the effect that the appointment of Assistant Provincial Treasurers is still governed by Section 2088 (A) of the Revised Administrative Code, and not by Section 4 of the Decentralization Law, Republic Act No. 5185." 5 Thereafter on February 25, 1969, to quote anew from the appealed decision: "Mayor Villegas and Manuel D. Lapid filed the instant petition for prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus, with application for writ of preliminary injunction, praying that judgment be rendered to declare illegal and void ab initio the authorization given by respondent Romualdez to respondent Gloria to assume the duties of assistant city treasurer of Manila, and that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent Commissioner of Civil Service Subido commanding him to approve the appointment of petitioner Lapid to the said office in accordance with the civil Service Rules." 6 It was not until the filing of the petition that respondent Jose R. Gloria was nominated by the President of the Philippines to the position of Assistant City treasurer of Manila and thereafter

duly confirmed. After the case was submitted for judgment on the pleadings and the documentary exhibits stipulated by the parties, the court rendered its decision on August 4, 1969 dismissing the petition. Hence this appeal by way of certiorari. With this Tribunal, as with the court below, the decisive question is the applicable law. The Charter of the City of Manila, enacted in 1949, in express terms did confer on the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, the power to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer. 7 On the other hand, support for the petition is premised on the expansive interpretation that would be accorded the general provisions found in the Decentralization Act of 1967 to the effect that it is a city mayor who has the power to appoint all other employees paid out of city or local funds subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.
8

It is understandable why the choice for the lower court was not difficult to make. What has been so clearly ordained in the Charter is controlling. It survives in the face of the assertion that the additional power granted local officials to appoint employees paid out of local funds would suffice to transfer such authority to petitioner Mayor. A perusal of the words of the statute, even if far from searching would not justify such an interpretation. This is all more evident, considering the fidelity manifested by this Court to the doctrine that looks with less than favor on implied appeals. The decision now on appeal, to repeat, must be affirmed. 1. The inherent weakness of the contention of petitioner Mayor that would seize upon the vesting of the appointing power of all other "employees" except teachers paid out of local funds to justify his choice of petitioner Manuel D. Lapid as Assistant City Treasurer is readily disclosed. The Revised Administrative Code distinguishes one in that category from an "officer" to designate those "whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, may be considered to involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of the function of government, whether such duties are precisely defined by law or not." 9 Clearly, the Assistant and City Treasurer is an officer, not an employee. Then, too, Section 4 of the Decentralization Act relied upon by petitioner City Mayor specifically enumerates, the officials and their assistants whom he can appoint, specifically excluding therefrom city treasurers. 10 The expansive interpretation contended for is thus unwarranted. Nor is the case strengthened for petitioner City Mayor by the invocation of Pineda v. Claudio. 11 It is not to be denied that in the opinion of the Court, penned by Justice Castro, undue interference with the power and prerogatives of a local executive is sought to be avoided, considering his primary responsibility for efficient governmental administration. What is not to be ignored though is that such a principle was announced in connection with the appointment of a department head, the chief of police, who necessarily must enjoy the fullest confidence of the local executive, one moreover whose appointment is expressly vested in the city mayor. The principle therein announced does not extend as far as the choice of an assistant city treasurer whose functions do not require that much degree of confidence, not to mention the specific grant of such authority to the President. Equally unavailing then is Villegas v. Subido, 12 where this Court, through the then Justice Capistrano, recognized that the choice of who the city legal officer should be rests solely on the city mayor, such an office requiring as it does the highest degree of confidence. It bears repeating that the situation in the case before us is of a different

category. The decision appealed from, then, is not to be impugned as a failure to abide by controlling pronouncements of this Tribunal. 2. Much less is reversal of the lower court decision justified on the plea that the aforesaid provision in the Decentralization Act had the effect of repealing what is specifically ordained in the city charter. It has been the constant holding of this Court that repeals by duplication are not favored and will not be so declared unless it be manifest that the legislature so intended. Such a doctrine goes as far back as United States v. Reyes, a 1908 decision. 13 It is necessary then before such a repeal is deemed to exist that it be shown that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the same subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former. 14 There must be a showing of repugnancy clear and convincing in character. The language used in the latter statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. What is needed is a manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal. 15 More specifically, a subsequent statute, general in character as to its terms and application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest. This is so even if the provisions of the latter are sufficiently comprehensive to include what was set forth in the special act. This principle has likewise been consistently applied in decisions of this Court from Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty, 16 decided as far back as 1919. A citation from an opinion of Justice Tuason is illuminating. Thus: "From another angle the presumption against repeal is stronger. A special law is not regarded as having been amended or repealed by a general law unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. Generalia specialibus non derogant. And this is true although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the matter in the special statute. ... At any rate, in the event harmony between provisions of this type in the same law or in two laws is impossible, the specific provision controls unless the statute, considered in its entirety, indicates a contrary intention upon the part of the legislature. ... A general law is one which embraces a class of subjects or places and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class while a special act is one which relates to particular persons or things of a class. 17 WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of August 4, 1969 is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. Dizon and Teehankee, JJ., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995 HON. JUAN M. HAGAD, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, petitioner, vs. HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, Presiding Judge, Branch XXVIII, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Mandaue City Mayor ALFREDO M. OUANO, Mandaue City ViceMayor PATERNO CAETE and Mandaue City Sangguniang Panlungsod Member RAFAEL MAYOL, respondents.

VITUG, J.: The determination of whether the Ombudsman under Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6770, 1 otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, has been divested of his authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7160, 2 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, is the pivotal issue before the Court in this petition. The petition seeks (a) to annul the writ of preliminary injunction, dated 21 October 1992, issued against petitioner by respondent trial court and (b) to prohibit said court from further proceeding with RTC Case No. MDE-14. 3 Parenthetically, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo Mojica assumed the office of Juan Hagad, now resigned, 4 who took the initiative in instituting this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The controversy stemmed from the filing of criminal and administrative complaints, on 22 July 1992, against herein respondents Mayor Alfredo Ouano, Vice-Mayor Paterno Caete and Sangguniang Panlungsod Member Rafael Mayol, all public officials of Mandaue City, by Mandaue City Councilors Magno B. Dionson and Gaudiosa O. Bercede with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. The respondents were charged with having violated R.A. No. 3019, as amended, 5 Articles 170 6 and 171 7 of the Revised Penal Code; and R.A. No. 6713. 8 Councilors Dionson and Bercede averred that respondent officials, acting in conspiracy, had caused the alteration and/or falsification of Ordinance No. 018/92 by increasing the allocated appropriation therein from P3,494,364.57 to P7,000,000.00 without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue City. The complaints were separately docketed as Criminal Case No. OMB-VIS-92-391 and as Administrative Case No. OMB-VIS-ADM-92-015. A day after the filing of the complaints, or on 23 July 1992, a sworn statement was executed by Mandaue City Council Secretary, Atty. Amado C. Otarra, Jr., in support of the accusations

against respondent officials. The next day, petitioner ordered respondents, including Acting Mandaue City Treasurer Justo G. Ouano and Mandaue City Budget Officer Pedro M. Guido, to file their counter-affidavits within ten (10) days from receipt of the order. Forthwith, Councilors Dionson and Bercede moved for the preventive suspension of respondent officials in the separately docketed administrative case. Aside from opposing the motion for preventive suspension, respondent officials, on 05 August 1992, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Ombudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the administrative case filed against them since, under Section 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions against said local officials, as well as to effect their preventive suspension, had now been vested with the Office of the President. In their opposition, filed on 10 August 1992, Dionson and Bercede argued that the Local Government Code of 1991 could not have repealed, abrogated or otherwise modified the pertinent provisions of the Constitution granting to the Ombudsman the power to investigate cases against all public officials and that, in any case, the power of the Ombudsman to investigate local officials under the Ombudsman Act had remained unaffected by the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. During the hearing on the motion for preventive suspension, the parties were directed by the Deputy Ombudsman to file their respective memoranda. In his memorandum, Mayor Ouano reiterated that, under Sections 61 and 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the Office of the President, not the Office of the Ombudsman, could lawfully take cognizance of administrative complaints against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city or an independent component city and to impose disciplinary sanctions, including preventive suspensions, and that there was nothing in the provision of the Constitution giving to the Office of the Ombudsman superior powers than those of the President over elective officials of local governments. In an Order, 9 dated 10 September 1992, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and recommended the preventive suspension of respondent officials, except City Budget Officer Pedro M. Guido, until the administrative case would have been finally resolved by the Ombudsman. 10 Respondent officials were formally placed under preventive suspension by the Deputy Ombudsman pursuant to an Order 11 of 21 September 1992. On 25 September 1992, a petition for prohibition, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, was filed by respondent officials with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City. Acting favorably on the pleas of petitioning officials, respondent Judge issued, on even date, a restraining order directed at petitioner, enjoining him ". . . from enforcing and/or implementing the questioned order of preventive suspension issued in OMB-VIS-ADM-92-015." Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition but it was to no avail. The court a quo, on 15 October 1992, denied the motion to dismiss and issued an Order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, holding thusly:

So by following and applying the well-established rules of statutory construction that endeavor should be made to harmonize the provisions of these two laws in order that each shall be effective, it is the finding of this Court that since the investigatory power of the Ombudsman is so general, broad and vague and gives wider discretion to disciplining authority to impose administrative sanctions against a responsible public official or employee while that of Section 60 of the New Local Government Code provides for more well defined and specific grounds upon which a local elective official can be subjected to administrative disciplinary action, that it Could be considered that the latter law could be an exception to the authority and administrative power of the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation against local elective officials and as such, the jurisdiction now to conduct administrative investigation against local elective officials is already lodged before the offices concerned under Section 61 of Republic Act No. 7160. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, Order is hereby issued: 1) Expanding the restraining order dated September 25, 1992 issued by the Court into an Order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the posting of the petitioners of the bond in the amount of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs that may be adjudged to the adverse party and/or damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the Court will finally adjudge that the petitioners are not entitled thereto, and 2) Denying the respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated September 28, 1992 for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 12 A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on 21 October 1992. 13 A motion for reconsideration made by petitioner was denied by the trial court. The instant recourse seeks the nullification of the order of 15 October 1992 and the writ of preliminary injunction of 21 October 1992 both issued by the trial court and prays that respondent judge be directed to desist from further proceeding with RTC Case No. MDE-14. There is merit in the petition. The general investigatory power of the Ombudsman is decreed by Section 13 (1,) Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution, 14 thus: Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient; while his statutory mandate to act on administrative complaints is contained in Section 19 of R.A. No. 6770 that reads:

Sec. 19. Administrative complaints. The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which: 1. Are contrary to law or regulation; 2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; 3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though in accordance with law; 4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts; 5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or 6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification. Section 21 of the same statute names the officials who could be subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman, viz.: Sec. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. (Emphasis supplied) Taken in conjunction with Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, petitioner thus contends that the Office of the Ombudsman correspondingly has the authority to decree preventive suspension on any public officer or employee under investigation by it. Said section of the law provides: Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. Respondent officials, upon the other hand, argue that the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over local officials must be deemed to have been removed by the subsequent

enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 which vests the authority to investigate administrative charges, listed under Section 60 15 thereof, on various offices. In the case specifically of complaints against elective officials of provinces and highly urbanized cities, the Code states: Sec. 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. A verified complaint against any erring local elective officials shall be prepared as follows: (a) A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the President. Thus respondents insist, conformably with Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension can only be imposed by: ". . . the President if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a highly urbanized or an independent component city; . . . " under sub-paragraph (b) thereof: (b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when the evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence; Provided, That, any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided, further, That in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension. In his comment, which the Court required considering that any final resolution of the case would be a matter of national concern, the Solicitor-General has viewed the Local Government Code of 1991 as having conferred, but not on an exclusive basis, on the Office of the President (and the various Sanggunians) disciplinary authority over local elective officials. He posits the stand that the Code did not withdraw the power of the Ombudsman theretofore vested under R.A. 6770 conformably with a constitutional mandate. In passing, the Solicitor General has also opined that the appropriate remedy that should have been pursued by respondent officials is a petition for certiorari before this Court rather than their petition for prohibition filed with the Regional Trial Court. Indeed, there is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only uphold one and strike down the other . Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by implication are not favored, 16 and that courts must generally assume their congruent application. 17 The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, 18 and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. 19 The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. 20 The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes. 21 Hence, all doubts must

be resolved against any implied repeal, 22 and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject. 23 Certainly, Congress would not have intended to do injustice to the very reason that underlies the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution which "is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom." 24 Quite interestingly, Sections 61 and 63 of the present Local Government Code run almost parallel with the provisions then existing under the old code. Section 61 and Section 63 of the precursor local Government Code of 1983, 25 under the heading of "Suspension and Removal," read: Sec. 61. Form and Filing of Complaints. Verified complaints against local elective officials shall be prepared as follows: (a) Against any elective provincial or city official, before the Minister of Local Government. Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension. (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official. (2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension. (3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him until its termination. However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension. The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive suspension over elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the Minister of Local Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the enactment of R.A. No. 6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to the extent of the common grant. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), in fine, did not effect a change from what already prevailed, the modification being only in the substitution of the Secretary (the Minister) of Local Government by the Office of the President. Respondent local officials contend that the 6-month preventive suspension without pay under Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act is much too repugnant to the 60-day preventive suspension provided by Section 63 of the Local Government Code to even now maintain its application. The two provisions govern differently. In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public

official under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and (a) the charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges should warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office would prejudice the case filed against him. The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all public officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation. Upon the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive suspension prescribed in the Local Government Code of 1991 on an elective local official (at any time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that (a) there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, (b) the evidence of culpability is strong, (c) the gravity of the offense so warrants, or (d) the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. Respondent officials, nevertheless, claim that petitioner committed grave abuse of discretion when he caused the issuance of the preventive suspension order without any hearing. The contention is without merit. The records reveal that petitioner issued the order of preventive suspension after the filing (a) by respondent officials of their opposition on the motion for preventive suspension and (b) by Mayor Ouano of his memorandum in compliance with the directive of petitioner. Be that, as it may, we have heretofore held that, not being in the nature of a penalty, a preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard. Naturally, such a preventive suspension would occur prior to any finding of guilt or innocence. In the early case of Nera vs. Garcia, 26 reiterated in subsequent cases, 27 we have said: In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice it to say that the suspension was not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against him are heard and be given an opportunity to prove his innocence. Moreover, respondent officials were, in point of fact, put on preventive suspension only after petitioner had found, in consonance with our ruling in Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 28 that the evidence of guilt was strong. Petitioner gave his justification for the preventive suspension in this wise: After a careful and honest scrutiny of the evidence submitted on record, at this stage, it is the holding of this office that the evidence of guilt against the respondents in the instant case is strong. There is no question that the charge against the respondents involves dishonesty or gross misconduct which would warrant their removal from the service and there is no gainsaying the fact that the charge for falsification of veritable documents like city ordinances are very serious charges that affect the very foundations of duly established representative governments. Finally, it is likewise the holding of this office at this stage that the continued stay in office of respondents may prejudice the judicious investigation and resolution of the instant case. 29

Finally, it does appear, as so pointed out by the Solicitor General, that respondent official's petition for prohibition, being an application for remedy against the findings of petitioner contained in his 21 September 1992 order, should not have been entertained by the trial court. The proscription in Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770 reads: Sec. 14. Restrictions. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law. Likewise noteworthy is Section 27 of the law which prescribes a direct recourse to this Court on matters involving orders arising from administrative disciplinary cases originating from the Office of the Ombudsman; thus: Sec. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. . . . In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied) All told, petitioner is plainly entitled to the relief prayed for, and we must, accordingly; grant the petition. WHEREFORE, the questioned writ of preliminary injunction of 21 October 1992 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and RTC Case No. MDE-14 is hereby ordered DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., J., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVSION G.R. No. L-26551 February 27, 1976

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. WENCESLAO ALMUETE FERNANDO FRONDA, FAUSTO DURION and CIPRIANO FRONDA, defendants-appellees. Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Vicente A. Torres for appellant. Emiliano D. Castellanes for appellees.

AQUINO, J.: Wenceslao Almuete Fernando Fronda, Cipriano Fronda and Fausto Durion were charged with a violation of section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law. It was alleged in the information that in December, 1963, in Muoz, Nueva Ecija the accused being tenants of Margarita Fernando in her riceland, without notice to her or without her consent, pre-threshed a portion of their respective harvests of five (5) cavans of palay each to her damage in the amount of P187.50 at P12.50 a cavan (Criminal Case No. SD-179, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Sto. Domingo Branch VI). Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. They filed motion for a bill of particulars as to the exact date of the commission of the offense charged. The lower court denied their motion because they had already entered their plea. Thereafter, they -filed a motion to quash the information on that grounds (1) that it does not allege facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged; (2) that there is no law punishing it, and (3) that the court has, no jurisdiction over the alleged time The fiscal opposed the motion. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the information in its order of August 11, 1966. It held that the information is basically deficient because it does not describe t lie circumstances under which the cavans of palay were found in the possession of the accused tenants; it does not specify the date agreed upon for the threshing of the harvests, and it does not allege that the palay found in the tenants' possession exceeded ten percent of their net share based on the last normal harvest. The prosecution appealed from the order of dismissal. The Solicitor General argues in his brief that the information in this case alleges all the elements of the offense defined in section 39 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended of Republic Act No. 2263. Sections 39 and 57 of the same law reads as follows: SEC. 39. Prohibition on Pre-threshing. It shall be unlawful for either the tenant or landholder, without mutual consent, to reap or thresh a portion of the crop at any time previous to the date set for its threshing- That if the tenant n food for his family and the landholder does not or cannot furnish such and refuses to allow the tenant to reap or thresh a portion of the crop previous to the

date set for its threshing, the tenant can reap or thresh not more than ten percent of his net share in the last normal harvest after giving notice thereof to the landholder or his representative. Any violation of this situation by either party shall be treated and penalized in accordance with this Act and/or under the general provisions of law applicable to that act committed. SEC. 57. Penal Provision. Violation of the provisions of ... sections thirty-nine and forty-nine of this Act shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the Court. ... * We hold that the order of dismissal should be affirmed because as held in People vs. Adillo, L23M, November 27, 1975, a case similar to the instant case, section 99 was impliedly repealed by the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 168 O.G. 915) and as implemented by Presidential Decrees Nos. 2, 27 and 316. That Code was already in force when the act complained of was committed. The repeal may be rationalized in this manner: The prohibition against pre-reaping or pre-threshing found in section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law of 1954 is premised on the existence of the rice share tenancy system. The evident purpose is to prevent the tenant and the landholder from defrauding each other in the division of the harvests. The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in sections 4 and 35 of the Code). The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions indicated in section 4 thereof. It is significant that section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code whose section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its provisions. Under the leasehold system the prohibition against pre-threshing has no, more raison d'etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, or the Code of Agrarian Reforms, as redesignated in Republic Act No. 6389 which took effect on September 10, 1971. Thus, the legal maxim, cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases). applies to this case. Section 4 of the Code of Agrarian Reforms declared agricultural share tenancy throughout the country as contrary to public policy and automatically converted it to agricultural leasehold. Presidential Decree No. 2 proclaimed the entire country "as a land reform area". Presidential Decree No. 27 emancipated the tenant from the bondage of the soil. And Presidential Decree No. 316 interdicted the ejectment or removal of the tenant-farmer from his farmholding until the promulgation of the rules and regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 27. (See People vs. Adillo, supra). The legislative intent not to punish anymore the tenant's act of pre- reaping and pre-threshing without notice to the landlord is inferable from the fact that, as already noted, the Code of Agrarian Reforms did not reenact section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law and that it abolished share tenancy which is the basis for penalizing clandestine pre-reaping and prethreshing.

All indications point to a deliberate and manifest legislative design to replace the Agricultural Tenancy Law with the Code of Agrarian Reforms, formerly the Agricultural Land Reform Code, at least as far as ricelands are concerned. As held in the Adillo case, the act of pre-reaping and pre-threshing without notice to the landlord, which is an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy Law, had ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law, the Code of Agrarian Reforms. To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant or abhorrent to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore prereaping and pre-threshing without notice to landholder. It is a rule of legal hermeneutics that "an act which purports to set out in full all that it intends to contain operates as a repeal of anything omitted which was contain in the old act and not included in the amendatory act" (Crawford, Construction of Statutes, p. 621 cited in the Adillo case). A subsequent statute, revising the whole subject matter of a former statute, and evidently intended as a substitute for it, operates to repeal the former statute" (82 C.J.S. 499). 'The revising statute is in effect a 'legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom shall be discarded" (82 C.J.S. 500). The repeal of appeal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal (People vs. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225; People vs. Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000; People vs. Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes, 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil. 431. See dissent in Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil. 247, 252, 254). WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is affirmed with costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., took no part. Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991

B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN, MARIELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, CAPT. MANUEL ISON, COL. LUISITO SANCHEZ, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO, LTC. ARSENIO TECSON, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT LTC. FRANKLIN BRAWNER, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PERA, MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO, CAPT. DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER AMON, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE PTI INVESTIGATING PANEL COMPOSED OF: COL. MANUEL S. MENDIOLA, COL. VIRTUD NORBERTO L. DAGZA MAJ. FELIX V. BALDONADO and MAJ. ESTELITO L. PORNEA and GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14 COMPOSED OF: B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, respondents. No. 95020 August 2, 1991 B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMIMO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, petitioners, vs. HON. MIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Q.C., LTC. JACINTO LIGOT PA., respondents. No. 96948 August 2, 1991 B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN. MARCELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO PN, CAPT. MANUEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN (M), LTC. ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ PA, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO PA, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT PA, LTC. FRANKLIN BRAWNER PA, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN (M): MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA PA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES PA, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO PA, CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT. ELMER AMON PAF CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14, respondents. No. 97454 August 2, 1991 AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RODOLFO BIAZON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MAJOR GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL MAJOR GEN.

CESAR NAZARENO and LT. COL. ALBERTO OLARIO, Commanding Officer of the PNP/INP Detention Center/Jail, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 86, CAPTAIN REYNALDO S. RAFAEL, 1 LT SERVANDO A. BAOANAN PN(M), 1 LT. WILFREDO JIMENEZ PAF 1 LT. ATANACIO T. MACALAN JR PMM 2LT ELISEO T. RASCO PC, 2LT JONAS CALLEJA PC, 2LT JAIRUS JS GELVEZON III PMM 2LT JOSELITO CABREROS PMM 2LT MEMEL ROJAS PN(M) and 2LT HERMINIO L. CANTACO PC, respondents. Armando M. Marcelo and Rainier L. Madrid for petitioners Luisito Sanchez, Tiburcio Fusillero, Ericson Aurelio, Levino Valencia, Danilo Arnon Vergel Nacino, Florencio Flores, Benigno Junio and Joey Sarroza. Manuel Q. Malvar for Rafael Galvez and Danny Lim. Manuel E. Valenzuela for Arsenio Tecson Mariano R. Santiago for Alfredo Oliveros. Ricardo J.M. Rivera for Manuel Ison. Castillo, Laman, Tan and Pantaleon for Danilo Pizarro. Alfredo Lazaro for Romelino Gojo. Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr. for Jose Comendador. Jonathan B.S. Rebong and Efren C. Carag for Marcelo Blando. Pablito V. Sanidad for Franklin Brawner and Ericson Aurelio. Efren C. Moncupa for All Tecson. M.M. Lazaro & Associates for respondents Ligot and Ison . Baldomero S.P. Gatbonton, Jr. for Jacinto Ligot. Salvador B. Britanico for Cesar de la Pena. Gilbert R.T. Reyes for Danilo Pizarro. Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Reyes & Manalastas for petitioners in G.R. No. 93177. The Solicitor General for respondents.

CRUZ, J.:p These four cases have been consolidated because they involve practically the same parties and related issues arising from the same incident. The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 and the private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454 are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on December 1 to 9, 1989. The charges against them are violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). In G.R. No. 93177, which is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, they are questioning the conduct of the Pre-Trial Investigation PTI Panel constituted to investigate the charges against them and the creation of the General Court Martial GCM convened to try them. In G.R. No. 96948, the petitioners, besides challenging the legality of GCM No. 14, seek certiorari against its ruling denying them the right to peremptory challenge as granted by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. In G.R. No. 95020, the orders of the respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City are assailed on certiorari on the ground that he has no jurisdiction over GCM No. 14 and no authority either to set aside its ruling denying bail to the private respondents. In G.R. No. 97454, certiorari is also sought against the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in a petition for habeas corpus directing the release of the private respondents. Jurisdictional objections are likewise raised as in G.R. No. 95020. I Before the charges were referred to GCM No. 14, a Pre-Trial Investigation PTI Panel had been constituted pursuant to Office Order No. 16 dated January 14, 1990, to investigate the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948. The PTI Panel issued a uniform subpoena dated January 30, 1990, individually addressed to the petitioners, to wit: You are hereby directed to appear in person before the undersigned Pre-Trial Investigating Officers on 12 Feb 90 9:00 a.m. at Kiangan Hall, Camp Crame Quezon City, then and there to submit your counter-affidavit and the affidavits of your witnesses, if any, in the pre-trial investigation of the charge/charges against you for violence of AWs _______________. DO NOT SUBMIT A MOTION TO DISMISS. Failure to submit the aforementioned counter-affidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed a waiver of your right to submit controverting evidence.

On the same date, the petitioners acknowledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet, sworn statements of witnesses, and death and medical certificates of victims of the rebellion. At the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on various grounds, prompting the PTI Panel to grant them 10 days within which to file their objections in writing This was done through a Motion for Summary Dismissal dated February 21, 1990. In a resolution dated February 27,1990, the PTI Panel denied the motion and gave the petitioners 5 days from notice to submit their respective counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses. On March 7, 1990, the petitioners verbally moved for reconsideration of the foregoing denial and the PTI Panel gave them 7 days within which to reduce their motion to writing. This was done on March 14,1990. The petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71, which provides: Art. 71. Charges Action upon. Charges and specifications must be signed by a person subject to military law, and under the oath either that he has personal knowledge of, or has investigated, the matters set forth therein and that the same are true in fact, to the best of his knowledge and belief. No charge will be referred to a general court-martial for trial until after a thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made. This investigation will include inquiries as to the truth of the matter set forth in said charges, form of charges, and what disposition of the case should be made in the interest of justice and discipline. At such investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigating officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after such investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides. (Emphasis supplied.) They also allege that the initial hearing of the charges consisted merely of a roll call and that no prosecution witnesses were presented to reaffirm their affidavits. while the motion for summary dismissal was denied, the motion for reconsideration remains unresolved to date and they have not been able to submit their counter-affidavits. At the hearing of May 15, 1990, the petitioners in G.R. No. 96948 manifested that they were exercising their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and members of GCM No.14. They invoked Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 for this purpose. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under P.D. No. 39. In G.R. No. 95020, Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5, 1990, but the application was denied by GCM No.14. He thereupon filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary

injunction. After considering the petition and the answer thereto filed by the president and members of GCM No.14, Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued an order granting provisional liberty to Ligot. On July 28, 1990, Ligot filed an urgent omnibus motion to enforce the order for his release and to declare in contempt the commanding officer of the PC/INP Jail for disobey 'ng the said order. He later also complained that Generals De Villa and Aguirre had refused to release him "pending final resolution of the appeal to be taken" to this Court. After hearing, the trial court reiterated its order for the provisional liberty of Ligot, as well as of intervenors Ltc Franklin Brawner, Lt/Col. Arsenio Tecson and Maj. Alfredo Oliveros, and later of additional intervenors Ltc Romelino Gojo and Capt. Manuel Ison. On August 22, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment inter alia: (a) Declaring, that Section 13, Article III of the Constitution granting the right to bail to all persons with the defined exception is applicable and covers all military men facing court-martial proceedings. Accordingly, the assailed orders of General Court- Martial No. 14 denying bail to petitioner and intervenors on the mistaken assumption that bail does not apply to military men facing court-martial proceedings on the ground that there is no precedent, are hereby set aside and declared null and void. Respondent General Court-Martial No. 14 is hereby directed to conduct proceedings on the applications of bail of the petitioner, intervenors and which may as well include other persons facing charges before General Court-Martial No. 14. Pending the proceedings on the applications for bail before General Court-Martial No. 14, this Court reiterates its orders of release on the provisional liberty of petitioner Jacinto Ligot as well as intervenors Franklin Brawner and Arsenio Tecson. On February 18, 1991, the private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 filed with this Court a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. The petition was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where it was raffled to respondent Judge Antonio P. Solano. Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their arrest, the trial court ordered their release. II The Court has examined the records of this case and rules as follows. It appears that the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of February 12, 1990, and then again after the denial of their motion of February 21, 1990, when they were given until March 7, 1990, to submit their counter-affidavits. On that date, they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to submit in writing. This they did on March 13, 1990. The motion was in effect denied when the PTI Panel resolved to recommend that the charges be referred to the General Court Martial for trial.

The said petitioners cannot now claim they have been denied due process because the investigation was resolved against them owing to their own failure to submit their counteraffidavits. They had been expressly warned In the subpoena sent them that "failure to submit the aforementioned counter-affidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed a waiver of (their) right to submit controverting evidence." They chose not to heed the warning. As their motions appeared to be dilatory, the PTI Panel was justified in referring the charges to GCM No. 14 without waiting for the petitioners to submit their defense. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the Bill of Rights. There was in our view substantial compliance with Article of War 71 by the PTI Panel. Moreover, it is now settled that "even a failure to conduct a pre-trial investigation does not deprive a general court- martial of jurisdiction." We so held in Arula v. Espino, 1 thus: xxx xxx xxx But even a failure to conduct a pre-trial investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of jurisdiction. The better accepted concept of pre-trial investigation is that it is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the jurisdiction of a court-martial. In Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U.S. 695, 93 L ed 986 (1949), the Court said: We do not think that the pre-trial investigation procedure by Article 70 (The Philippine counterpart is article of war 71, Commonwealth Act 408) can properly be construed as an indispensable pre-requisite to the exercise of the Army General court martial jurisdiction.. The Article does serve important functions in the administration of court-martial procedures and does provide safeguards to an accused. Its language is clearly such that a defendant could object to trial in the absence of the required investigation. In that event the court-martial could itself postpone trial pending the investigation. And the military reviewing authorities could consider the same contention, reversing a court- martial conviction where failure to comply with Article 70 has substantially injured an accused. But we are not persuaded that Congress intended to make otherwise valid court-martial judgments wholly void because pre-trial investigations fall short of the standards prescribed by Article 70. That Congress has not required analogous pre-trial procedure for Navy court-martial is an indication that the investigatory plan was not intended to be exalted to the jurisdictional level. xxx xxx xxx Shortly after enactment of Article 70 in 1920 the Judge Advocate General of the Army did hold that where there had been no pre-trial investigation, court-martial proceedings were void ab initio. But this holding has been expressly repudiated in later holdings of the Judge Advocate General. This later interpretation has been that the pre-trial requirements of Article 70 are directory, not mandatory, and in no way effect the jurisdiction of a court-martial. The War Department's interpretation was pointedly called to the attention of Congress in 1947 after which

Congress amended Article 70 but left unchanged the language here under consideration. compensable pre-requisite to the exercise of Army general court-martial jurisdiction A trial before a general court-martial convened without any pretrial investigation under article of war 71 would of course be altogether irregular but the court-martial might nevertheless have jurisdiction. Significantly, this rule is similar to the one obtaining in criminal procedure in the civil courts to the effect that absence of preliminary investigation does not go into the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings. As to what law should govern the conduct of the preliminary investigation, that issue was resolved more than two years ago in Kapunan v. De Villa, 2 where we declared: The Court finds that, contrary to the contention of petitioners, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of law as provided in the Articles of War and P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911. The amended charge sheets, charging petitioners and their co-respondents with mutiny and conduct unbecoming an officer, were signed by Maj. Antonio Ruiz, a person subject to military law, after he had investigated the matter through an evaluation of the pertinent records, including the reports of respondent AFP Board of Officers, and was convinced of the truth of the testimonies on record. The charge sheets were sworn to by Maj. Ruiz, the "accuser," in accordance with and in the manner provided under Art. 71 of the Articles of War. Considering that P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911, is only of suppletory application, the fact that the charge sheets were not certified in the manner provided under said decrees, i.e., that the officer administering the oath has personally examined the affiant and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood its affidavit, does not invalidate said charge sheets. Thereafter, a "pretrial investigation" was conducted by respondent Maj. Baldonado, wherein, pursuant to P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911, petitioners were subpoenaed and required to file their counter-affidavit. However, instead of doing so, they filed an untitled pleading seeking the dismissal of the charges against them. That petitioners were not able to confront the witnesses against them was their own doing, for they never even asked Maj. Baldonado to subpoena said witnesses so that they may be made to answer clarificatory questions in accordance with P. D, No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911. The petitioners also allege that GCM No. 14 has not been constitute in accordance with Article 8 of the Articles of War because General Order No. M-6, which supposedly convened the body, was not signed by Gen. Renato de Villa as Chief of Staff. Article of War No. 8 reads: Art. 8. General Courts-Martial. The President of the Philippines, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Chief of Constabulary and, when empowered by the President, the commanding officer of a major command or task force, the commanding officer of a division, the commanding officer of a military area, the superintendent of the Military Academy, the commanding officer of a separate brigade or body of troops may appoint general courts-martial; but when any such commander is the accuser or the prosecutor of the person or persons to be tried, the court shall be appointed by superior competent authority. ...

While it is true that General Order No. M-6 was not signed by Gen. De Villa, there is no doubt that he authorized it because the order itself said it was issued "By Command of General De Villa" and it has not been shown to be spurious. As observed by the Solicitor General, the Summary Disposition Form showed that Gen. De Villa, as Chief of Staff, AFP, actually constituted GCM No. 14 and appointed its president and members. It is significant that General De Villa has not disauthorized or revoked or in any way disowned the said order, as he would certainly have done if his authority had been improperly invoked. On the contrary, as the principal respondent in G.R. No. 93177, he sustained General Order No. M 6 in the Comment filed for him and the other respondents by the Solicitor General. Coming now to the right to peremptory challenge, we note that this was originally provided for under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War), as amended by Rep. Act No. 242, on June 12, 1948, to wit: Art. 18. Challenges. Members of general or special courts-martial may be challenged by the accused or the trial judge advocate for cause stated to the court. The court shall determine the relevancy and validity thereof, and shall not receive a challenge to more than one member at a time. Challenges by the trial judge advocate shall ordinarily be presented and decided before those by the accused are offered. Each side shall be entitled to the peremptory challenge, but the law member of the court shall not be challenged except for cause. The history of peremptory challenge was traced in Martelino v. Alejandro, 3 thus: In the early formative years of the infant Philippine Army, after the passage in 1935 of Commonwealth Act No. 1 (otherwise known as the National Defense Act), except for a handful of Philippine Scout officers and graduates of the United States military and naval academies who were on duty with the Philippine Army, there was a complete dearth of officers learned in military law, its aside from the fact that the officer corps of the developing army was numerically made equate for the demands of the strictly military aspects of the national defense program. Because of these considerations it was then felt that peremptory challenges should not in the meanwhile be permitted and that only challenges for cause, in any number, would be allowed. Thus Article 18 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408), as worded on September 14, 1938, the date of the approval of the Act, made no mention or reference to any peremptory challenge by either the trial judge advocate of a court- martial or by the accused. After December 17,1958, when the Manual for Courts-Martial of the Philippine Army became effective, the Judge Advocate General's Service of the Philippine Army conducted a continuing and intensive program of training and education in military law, encompassing the length and breadth of the Philippines. This program was pursued until the outbreak of World War 11 in the Pacific on December 7, 1941. After the formal surrender of Japan to the allies in 1945, the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had expanded to a very large number, and a great many of the officers had been indoctrinated in military law. It was in these environmental circumstances that Article of War 18 was amended on June 12,1948 to entitle "each side" to one peremptory challenge, with the sole proviso that "the law member of court shall not be challenged except for cause.

On September 27,1972, President Marcos issued General Order No. 8, empowering the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces to create military tribunals "to try and decide cases of military personnel and such other cases as may be referred to them. On November 7,1972, he promulgated P.D. No. 39 (Governing the Creation, Composition, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters relevant to military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory challenge, thus: No peremptory challenge shall be allowed. Challenges for cause may be entertained to insure impartiality and good faith. Challenges shall immediately be heard and determined by a majority of the members excluding the challenged member. A tie vote does not disqualify the challenged member. A successfully challenged member shall be immediately replaced. On June 11, 1978, President Marcos promulgated P.D. No. 1498, or the National Security Code, which was a compilation and codification of decrees, general orders, LOI and policies intended "to meet the continuing threats to the existence, security and stability of the State." The modified rule on challenges under P.D. No. 39 was embodied in this decree. On January 17,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045 proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines. The proclamation revoked General Order No. 8 and declared the dissolution of the military tribunals created pursuant thereto upon final determination of the cases pending therein. P.D. No. 39 was issued to implement General Order No. 8 and the other general orders mentioned therein. With the termination of martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals created thereunder, the reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically. It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. This principle is also expressed in the maxim ratio legis est anima: the reason of law is its soul. Applying these rules, we hold that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge in L P.D. No. 39 became ineffective when the apparatus of martial law was dismantled with the issuance of Proclamation No. 2045, As a result, the old rule embodied in Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was automatically revived and now again allows the right to peremptory challenge. We do not agree with the respondents in G.R. No. 96948 that the right to peremptory challenge remains withdrawn under P.D. No. 39. To repeat for emphasis, this decree was itself withdrawn when martial law was lifted on January 17, 1981. Indeed, even if not so withdrawn, it could still be considered no longer operative, having been cast out under the new dispensation as, in the words of the Freedom Constitution, one of the "iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime. The military tribunal was one of the most oppressive instruments of martial law. It is curious that the present government should invoke the rules of that discredited body to justify its action against the accused officers.

The Court realizes that the recognition of the right to peremptory challenge may be exploited by a respondent in a court-martial trial to delay the proceedings and defer his deserved Punishment. It is hoped that the accused officers in the cases at bar will not be so motivated. At any rate, the wisdom of Com. Act No. 408, in the light of present circumstances, is a matter addressed to the law-makers and not to this Court. The judiciary can only interpret and apply the laws without regard to its own misgivings on their adverse effects. This is a problem only the political departments can resolve. The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454 question the propriety of the petition for certiorari and mandamus and the petition for habeas corpus filed by the private respondents with the Regional Trial Courts of Quezon City. It is argued that since the private respondents are officers of the Armed Forces accused of violations of the Articles of War, the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. The petitioners further contend that under Sec. 9(3) of BP 1 29, the Court of Appeals is vested with "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions." Rather irrelevantly, the petitioners also cite the case of Yang v. Court of Appeals 4 where this Court held that "appeals from the Professional Regulation Commission are now exclusively cognizable by the Court of Appeals. It should be noted that the aforecited provision and the case cited refer to ordinary appeals and not to the remedies employed by the accused officers before the respondent courts. In Martelino, we observed as follows: It is true that civil courts as a rule exercise no supervision or correcting power over the proceedings of courts-martial, and that mere errors in their proceedings are not open to consideration. The single inquiry, the test, is jurisdiction. But it is equally true that in the exercise of their undoubted discretion, courts-martial may commit such an abuse of discretion what in the language of Rule 65 is referred to as "grave abuse of discretion" as to give rise to a defect in their jurisdiction. This is precisely the point at issue in this action suggested by its nature as one for certiorari and prohibition ... . The Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. 5 In the absence of a law providing that the decisions, orders and ruling of a court-martial or the Office of the Chief of Staff can be questioned only before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, we hold that the Regional Trial Court can exercise similar jurisdiction. We find that the right to bail invoked by the private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. This much was suggested in Arula, where we observed that "the right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.

The justification for this exception was well explained by the Solicitor General as follows: The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities outside of and against the existing political system. xxx xxx xxx National security considerations should also impress upon this Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents constitutes a damaging precedent. Imagine a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25,1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional" bail. The sheer number alone is already discomforting. But, the truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of government and justice. The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty requires equal treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially different from others. The accused officers can complain if they are denied bail and other members of the military are not. But they cannot say they have been discriminated against because they are not allowed the same right that is extended to civilians. On the contention of the private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest, our finding is that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. The petition for habeas corpus was directly filed with this Court on February 18, 1991, and was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for raffle, hearing and decision. It was heard on February 26, 1991, by the respondent court, where the petitioners submitted the charge memorandum and specifications against the private respondents dated January 30, 1991. On February 12, 1991, pursuant to Office Order No. 31-91, the PTI panel was created and initial investigation was scheduled on March 12, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. On March 20, 1991, the private respondents received the copies of the charges, charge sheets and specifications and were required to submit their counter-affidavits on or before April 11, 1991. There was indeed a delay of more than one year in the investigation and preparation of the charges against the private respondents. However, this was explained by the Solicitor General thus: ... The AFP Special Investigating Committee was able to complete it pre-charge investigation only after one (1) year because hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in the failed coup. All of them, as well as other witnesses, had to be interviewed or investigated,

and these inevitably took months to finish. The pre-charge investigation was rendered doubly difficult by the fact that those involved were dispersed and scattered throughout the Philippines. In some cases, command units, such as the Scout Rangers, have already been disbanded. After the charges were completed, the same still had to pass review and approval by the AFP Chief of Staff. While accepting this explanation, the Court nevertheless must reiterate the following admonition: This Court as protector of the rights of the people, must stress the point that if the participation of petitioner in several coup attempts for which he is confined on orders of Adjutant General Jorge Agcaoili cannot be established and no charges can be filed against him or the existence of a prima facie case warranting trial before a military commission is wanting, it behooves respondent then Major General Rodolfo Biazon (now General) to release petitioner. Respondents must also be reminded that even if a military officer is arrested pursuant to Article 70 of then Articles of War, indefinite confinement is not sanctioned, as Article 71 thereof mandates that immediate steps must be taken to try the person accused or to dissmiss the charge and release him. Any officer who is responsible for unnecessary delay in investigating or carrying the case to a final conclusion may even be punished as a court martial may direct. 6 It should be noted, finally, that after the decision was rendered by Judge Solano on February 26, 1991, the government filed a notice of appeal ad cautelam and a motion for reconsideration, the latter was ultimately denied, after hearing, on March 4, 1991. The 48- hour period for appeal under Rule 41, Section 18, of the Rules of Court did not run until after notice of such denial was received by the petitioners on March 12, 1991. Contrary to the private respondents' contention, therefore, the decision had not yet become final and executory when the special civil action in G.R. No. 97454 was filed with this Court on March 12, 1991. III Regarding the propriety of the petitions at bar, it is well to reiterate the following observations of the Court in Arula: The referral of charges to a court-martial involves the exercise of judgment and discretion (AW 71). A petition for certiorari, in order to prosper, must be based on jurisdictional grounds because, as long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. Even an abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. As in that case, we find that the respondents in G.R. No. 93177 have not acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction to justify the intervention of the Court and the reversal of the acts complained of by the petitioners. Such action is indicated, however, in G.R. No. 96948, where we find that the right to peremptory challenge should not have been denied, and in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, where the private respondents should not have been ordered released.

ACCORDINGLY, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the petition is GRANTED, and the respondents are DIRECTED to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under Article 18 of the Articles of War. In G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, the petitions are also GRANTED, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

SARMIENTO, J., concurring: I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Cruz, but I dissent insofar as he would deny bail to accused military personnel. The Constitution explicitly grants the right to bail to "all persons" before conviction, with the only exception of "those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong." 1 The Charter also states that "[T]he right to bail shall not be impaired even if the writ of habeas corpus is suspended." 2 To deny the military officers here concerned of the right to bail is to circumscribe the inclusive meaning of "all persons" the coverage of the right. I believe that military officers fall within "persons". The picture conjured up by the Solicitor General of "a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional" bail [t]he sheer number alone is already discomforting . . . [b]ut, the truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of government and justice." 3 But would a scenario of 1,000 murderers or drug pushers roaming the streets of the metropolis justify a denial of the right to bail? Would not that dark picture painted by the Solicitor General be reproduced by 1,000 "equally dangerous" elements of society? We gave bail Senator Enrile and General Brawner. I find no reason why the petitioners should not be granted the same right.

The majority would point to tradition, supposed to be firmly settled, as an argument to deny bail. I submit, however, that tradition is no argument. First, the Constitution does not say it. Second, we are a government of laws, not tradition. If there are precedents that attest to the contrary, I submit that a reexamination is in order.

Separate Opinions SARMIENTO, J., concurring: I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Cruz, but I dissent insofar as he would deny bail to accused military personnel. The Constitution explicitly grants the right to bail to "all persons" before conviction, with the only exception of "those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong." 1 The Charter also states that "[T]he right to bail shall not be impaired even if the writ of habeas corpus is suspended." 2 To deny the military officers here concerned of the right to bail is to circumscribe the inclusive meaning of "all persons" the coverage of the right. I believe that military officers fall within "persons". The picture conjured up by the Solicitor General of "a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional" bail [t]he sheer number alone is already discomforting . . . [b]ut, the truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of government and justice." 3 But would a scenario of 1,000 murderers or drug pushers roaming the streets of the metropolis justify a denial of the right to bail? Would not that dark picture painted by the Solicitor General be reproduced by 1,000 "equally dangerous" elements of society? We gave bail Senator Enrile and General Brawner. I find no reason why the petitioners should not be granted the same right. The majority would point to tradition, supposed to be firmly settled, as an argument to deny bail. I submit, however, that tradition is no argument. First, the Constitution does not say it. Second, we are a government of laws, not tradition. If there are precedents that attest to the contrary, I submit that a reexamination is in order.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995 IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.: A constitutional provision should be construed as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it is aimed. 1 The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House of Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the election." 2 The mischief which this provision reproduced verbatim from the 1973 Constitution seeks to prevent is the possibility of a "stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community." 3 Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor on March 8, 1995, providing the following information in item no. 8: 4 RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: __________ Years and seven Months. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate for the same position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" 5 with the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. In his petition, private respondent contended that Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's one year residency requirement for candidates for the House of Representatives on the evidence of declarations made by her in Voter Registration Record 94-No. 3349772 6 and in her Certificate of Candidacy. He prayed that "an order be issued declaring (petitioner) disqualified and canceling the certificate of candidacy." 7 On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" in item no. 8 of the amended certificate. 8 On the same day, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte informed petitioner that:

[T]his office cannot receive or accept the aforementioned Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that it is filed out of time, the deadline for the filing of the same having already lapsed on March 20, 1995. The Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy should have been filed on or before the March 20, 1995 deadline. 9 Consequently, petitioner filed the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy with the COMELEC's Head Office in Intramuros, Manila on March 31, 1995. Her Answer to private respondent's petition in SPA No. 95-009 was likewise filed with the head office on the same day. In said Answer, petitioner averred that the entry of the word "seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" 10 which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. 11 Impugning respondent's motive in filing the petition seeking her disqualification, she noted that: When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, petitioner immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. After respondent had registered as a voter in Tolosa following completion of her six month actual residence therein, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such a move up to the Supreme Court, his purpose being to remove respondent as petitioner's opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking the creation of another legislative district to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit along with respondent for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995. 12 On April 24, 1995, the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), by a vote of 2 to 1, 13 came up with a Resolution 1) finding private respondent's Petition for Disqualification in SPA 95-009 meritorious; 2) striking off petitioner's Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy of March 31, 1995; and 3) canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy. 14 Dealing with two primary issues, namely, the validity of amending the original Certificate of Candidacy after the lapse of the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy, and petitioner's compliance with the one year residency requirement, the Second Division held: Respondent raised the affirmative defense in her Answer that the printed word "Seven" (months) was a result of an "honest misinterpretation or honest mistake" on her part and, therefore, an amendment should subsequently be allowed. She averred that she thought that what was asked was her "actual and physical" presence in Tolosa and not residence of origin or domicile in the First Legislative District, to which she could have responded "since childhood." In an accompanying affidavit, she stated that her domicile is Tacloban City, a component of the First District, to which she always intended to return whenever absent and which she has never abandoned. Furthermore, in her memorandum, she tried to discredit petitioner's theory of

disqualification by alleging that she has been a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since childhood, although she only became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa for seven months. She asserts that she has always been a resident of Tacloban City, a component of the First District, before coming to the Municipality of Tolosa. Along this point, it is interesting to note that prior to her registration in Tolosa, respondent announced that she would be registering in Tacloban City so that she can be a candidate for the District. However, this intention was rebuffed when petitioner wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban not to allow respondent since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban. She never disputed this claim and instead implicitly acceded to it by registering in Tolosa. This incident belies respondent's claim of "honest misinterpretation or honest mistake." Besides, the Certificate of Candidacy only asks for RESIDENCE. Since on the basis of her Answer, she was quite aware of "residence of origin" which she interprets to be Tacloban City, it is curious why she did not cite Tacloban City in her Certificate of Candidacy. Her explanation that she thought what was asked was her actual and physical presence in Tolosa is not easy to believe because there is none in the question that insinuates about Tolosa. In fact, item no. 8 in the Certificate of Candidacy speaks clearly of "Residency in the CONSTITUENCY where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Thus, the explanation of respondent fails to be persuasive. From the foregoing, respondent's defense of an honest mistake or misinterpretation, therefore, is devoid of merit. To further buttress respondent's contention that an amendment may be made, she cited the case of Alialy v. COMELEC (2 SCRA 957). The reliance of respondent on the case of Alialy is misplaced. The case only applies to the "inconsequential deviations which cannot affect the result of the election, or deviations from provisions intended primarily to secure timely and orderly conduct of elections." The Supreme Court in that case considered the amendment only as a matter of form. But in the instant case, the amendment cannot be considered as a matter of form or an inconsequential deviation. The change in the number of years of residence in the place where respondent seeks to be elected is a substantial matter which determines her qualification as a candidacy, specially those intended to suppress, accurate material representation in the original certificate which adversely affects the filer. To admit the amended certificate is to condone the evils brought by the shifting minds of manipulating candidate, of the detriment of the integrity of the election. Moreover, to allow respondent to change the seven (7) month period of her residency in order to prolong it by claiming it was "since childhood" is to allow an untruthfulness to be committed before this Commission. The arithmetical accuracy of the 7 months residency the respondent indicated in her certificate of candidacy can be gleaned from her entry in her Voter's Registration Record accomplished on January 28, 1995 which reflects that she is a resident of Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte for 6 months at the time of the said registration (Annex A, Petition). Said accuracy is further buttressed by her letter to the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, dated August 24, 1994, requesting for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters thereat so that she can be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. The dates of

these three (3) different documents show the respondent's consistent conviction that she has transferred her residence to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte from Metro Manila only for such limited period of time, starting in the last week of August 1994 which on March 8, 1995 will only sum up to 7 months. The Commission, therefore, cannot be persuaded to believe in the respondent's contention that it was an error. xxx xxx xxx Based on these reasons the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy cannot be admitted by this Commission. xxx xxx xxx Anent the second issue, and based on the foregoing discussion, it is clear that respondent has not complied with the one year residency requirement of the Constitution. In election cases, the term "residence" has always been considered as synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in-that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. (Perfecto Faypon vs. Eliseo Quirino, 96 Phil 294; Romualdez vs. RTCTacloban, 226 SCRA 408). In respondent's case, when she returned to the Philippines in 1991, the residence she chose was not Tacloban but San Juan, Metro Manila. Thus, her animus revertendi is pointed to Metro Manila and not Tacloban. This Division is aware that her claim that she has been a resident of the First District since childhood is nothing more than to give her a color of qualification where she is otherwise constitutionally disqualified. It cannot hold ground in the face of the facts admitted by the respondent in her affidavit. Except for the time that she studied and worked for some years after graduation in Tacloban City, she continuously lived in Manila. In 1959, after her husband was elected Senator, she lived and resided in San Juan, Metro Manila where she was a registered voter. In 1965, she lived in San Miguel, Manila where she was again a registered voter. In 1978, she served as member of the Batasang Pambansa as the representative of the City of Manila and later on served as the Governor of Metro Manila. She could not have served these positions if she had not been a resident of the City of Manila. Furthermore, when she filed her certificate of candidacy for the office of the President in 1992, she claimed to be a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. As a matter of fact on August 24, 1994, respondent wrote a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila requesting for the cancellation of her registration in the permanent list of voters that she may be re-registered or transferred to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. These facts manifest that she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places, including Metro Manila. This debunks her claim that prior to her residence in Tolosa, Leyte, she was a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since childhood. In this case, respondent's conduct reveals her lack of intention to make Tacloban her domicile. She registered as a voter in different places and on several occasions declared that she was a

resident of Manila. Although she spent her school days in Tacloban, she is considered to have abandoned such place when she chose to stay and reside in other different places. In the case of Romualdez vs. RTC (226 SCRA 408) the Court explained how one acquires a new domicile by choice. There must concur: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (2) intention to remain there; and (3) intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words there must basically be animus manendi with animus non revertendi. When respondent chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her intention to stay there by registering as a voter there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, she is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent her childhood and school days, as her place of domicile. Pure intention to reside in that place is not sufficient, there must likewise be conduct indicative of such intention. Respondent's statements to the effect that she has always intended to return to Tacloban, without the accompanying conduct to prove that intention, is not conclusive of her choice of residence. Respondent has not presented any evidence to show that her conduct, one year prior the election, showed intention to reside in Tacloban. Worse, what was evident was that prior to her residence in Tolosa, she had been a resident of Manila. It is evident from these circumstances that she was not a resident of the First District of Leyte "since childhood." To further support the assertion that she could have not been a resident of the First District of Leyte for more than one year, petitioner correctly pointed out that on January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. In doing so, she placed in her Voter Registration Record that she resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of six months. This may be inconsequential as argued by the respondent since it refers only to her residence in Tolosa, Leyte. But her failure to prove that she was a resident of the First District of Leyte prior to her residence in Tolosa leaves nothing but a convincing proof that she had been a resident of the district for six months only. 15 In a Resolution promulgated a day before the May 8, 1995 elections, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 16 of the April 24, 1995 Resolution declaring her not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte. 17 The Resolution tersely stated: After deliberating on the Motion for Reconsideration, the Commission RESOLVED to DENY it, no new substantial matters having been raised therein to warrant re-examination of the resolution granting the petition for disqualification. 18 On May 11, 1995, the COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation should the results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes in the congressional elections in the First District of Leyte. On the same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and issued a second Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. 19 In a Supplemental Petition dated 25 May 1995, petitioner averred that she was the overwhelming winner of the elections for the congressional seat in the First District of Leyte held May 8, 1995

based on the canvass completed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on May 14, 1995. Petitioner alleged that the canvass showed that she obtained a total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833 votes received by Respondent Montejo. A copy of said Certificate of Canvass was annexed to the Supplemental Petition. On account of the Resolutions disqualifying petitioner from running for the congressional seat of the First District of Leyte and the public respondent's Resolution suspending her proclamation, petitioner comes to this court for relief. Petitioner raises several issues in her Original and Supplemental Petitions. The principal issues may be classified into two general areas: I. The issue of Petitioner's qualifications Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections. II. The Jurisdictional Issue a) Prior to the elections Whether or not the COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner outside the period mandated by the Omnibus Election Code for disqualification cases under Article 78 of the said Code. b) After the Elections Whether or not the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the question of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections. I. Petitioner's qualification A perusal of the Resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division reveals a startling confusion in the application of settled concepts of "Domicile" and "Residence" in election law. While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that for the purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile, the Resolution reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a candidate's qualifications for election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. As it were, residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an elective position, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction. Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong vs. Republic 20 this court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent." 21 Based on the foregoing,

domicile includes the twin elements of "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently. Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. 22 It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice. In Uytengsu vs. Republic, 23 we laid this distinction quite clearly: There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile. For political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. In Nuval vs. Guray, 24 the Court held that "the term residence. . . is synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." 25 Larena vs. Teves 26 reiterated the same doctrine in a case involving the qualifications of the respondent therein to the post of Municipal President of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. Faypon vs. Quirino, 27 held that the absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where one is elected does not constitute loss of residence. 28 So settled is the concept (of domicile) in our election law that in these and other election law cases, this Court has stated that the mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it actually means only "domicile" to wit: Mr. Nolledo: With respect to Section 5, I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to require residence in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the elections. So my question is: What is the Committee's concept of

residence of a candidate for the legislature? Is it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence? Mr. Davide: Madame President, insofar as the regular members of the National Assembly are concerned, the proposed section merely provides, among others, "and a resident thereof", that is, in the district for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of the election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973 Constitution, the interpretation given to it was domicile. 29 xxx xxx xxx Mrs. Rosario Braid: The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I think Commissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that "resident" has been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence. Mr. De los Reyes: Domicile. Ms. Rosario Braid: Yes, So, would the gentleman consider at the proper time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to reside? Mr. De los Reyes: But we might encounter some difficulty especially considering that a provision in the Constitution in the Article on Suffrage says that Filipinos living abroad may vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical residence. 30 In Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 31 this Court concluded that the framers of the 1987 Constitution obviously adhered to the definition given to the term residence in election law, regarding it as having the same meaning as domicile. 32 In the light of the principles just discussed, has petitioner Imelda Romualdez Marcos satisfied the residency requirement mandated by Article VI, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution? Of what significance is the questioned entry in petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy stating her residence in the First Legislative District of Leyte as seven (7) months? It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not and individual has satisfied the constitution's residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to deliberately and knowingly make a statement in a certificate of candidacy which would lead to his or her disqualification. It stands to reason therefore, that petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement. The circumstances leading to her filing the questioned entry obviously resulted in the subsequent confusion which prompted petitioner to write down the period of her actual stay in Tolosa, Leyte instead of her period of residence in the First district, which was "since childhood" in the space provided. These circumstances and events are amply detailed in the COMELEC's Second

Division's questioned resolution, albeit with a different interpretation. For instance, when herein petitioner announced that she would be registering in Tacloban City to make her eligible to run in the First District, private respondent Montejo opposed the same, claiming that petitioner was a resident of Tolosa, not Tacloban City. Petitioner then registered in her place of actual residence in the First District, which is Tolosa, Leyte, a fact which she subsequently noted down in her Certificate of Candidacy. A close look at said certificate would reveal the possible source of the confusion: the entry for residence (Item No. 7) is followed immediately by the entry for residence in the constituency where a candidate seeks election thus: 7. RESIDENCE (complete Address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte POST OFFICE ADDRESS FOR ELECTION PURPOSES: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte 8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:_________ Years and Seven Months. Having been forced by private respondent to register in her place of actual residence in Leyte instead of petitioner's claimed domicile, it appears that petitioner had jotted down her period of stay in her legal residence or domicile. The juxtaposition of entries in Item 7 and Item 8 the first requiring actual residence and the second requiring domicile coupled with the circumstances surrounding petitioner's registration as a voter in Tolosa obviously led to her writing down an unintended entry for which she could be disqualified. This honest mistake should not, however, be allowed to negate the fact of residence in the First District if such fact were established by means more convincing than a mere entry on a piece of paper. We now proceed to the matter of petitioner's domicile. In support of its asseveration that petitioner's domicile could not possibly be in the First District of Leyte, the Second Division of the COMELEC, in its assailed Resolution of April 24,1995 maintains that "except for the time when (petitioner) studied and worked for some years after graduation in Tacloban City, she continuously lived in Manila." The Resolution additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that petitioner's domicile ought to be any place where she lived in the last few decades except Tacloban, Leyte. First, according to the Resolution, petitioner, in 1959, resided in San Juan, Metro Manila where she was also registered voter. Then, in 1965, following the election of her husband to the Philippine presidency, she lived in San Miguel, Manila where she as a voter. In 1978 and thereafter, she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila. "She could not, have served these positions if she had not been a resident of Metro Manila," the COMELEC stressed. Here is where the confusion lies. We have stated, many times in the past, that an individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that "she

could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places" flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election law purposes. In Larena vs. Teves, 33 supra, we stressed: [T]his court is of the opinion and so holds that a person who has his own house wherein he lives with his family in a municipality without having ever had the intention of abandoning it, and without having lived either alone or with his family in another municipality, has his residence in the former municipality, notwithstanding his having registered as an elector in the other municipality in question and having been a candidate for various insular and provincial positions, stating every time that he is a resident of the latter municipality. More significantly, in Faypon vs. Quirino, 34 We explained that: A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look for "greener pastures," as the saying goes, to improve his lot, and that, of course includes study in other places, practice of his avocation, or engaging in business. When an election is to be held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his lot may desire to return to his native town to cast his ballot but for professional or business reasons, or for any other reason, he may not absent himself from his professional or business activities; so there he registers himself as voter as he has the qualifications to be one and is not willing to give up or lose the opportunity to choose the officials who are to run the government especially in national elections. Despite such registration, the animus revertendi to his home, to his domicile or residence of origin has not forsaken him. This may be the explanation why the registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence. It finds justification in the natural desire and longing of every person to return to his place of birth. This strong feeling of attachment to the place of one's birth must be overcome by positive proof of abandonment for another. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that in its above-cited statements supporting its proposition that petitioner was ineligible to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC was obviously referring to petitioner's various places of (actual) residence, not her domicile. In doing so, it not only ignored settled jurisprudence on residence in election law and the deliberations of the constitutional commission but also the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881). 35 What is undeniable, however, are the following set of facts which establish the fact of petitioner's domicile, which we lift verbatim from the COMELEC's Second Division's assailed Resolution: 36 In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1949 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University in Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he was still a

congressman of Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. [I]n February 1986 (she claimed that) she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992, respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. Applying the principles discussed to the facts found by COMELEC, what is inescapable is that petitioner held various residences for different purposes during the last four decades. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. Moreover, while petitioner was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of her parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached her adulthood there and eventually established residence in different parts of the country for various reasons. Even during her husband's presidency, at the height of the Marcos Regime's powers, petitioner kept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home province, instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives held positions of power either through the ballot or by appointment, always with either her influence or consent. These well-publicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the quarter century of Marcos power in our country. Either they were entirely ignored in the COMELEC'S Resolutions, or the majority of the COMELEC did not know what the rest of the country always knew: the fact of petitioner's domicile in Tacloban, Leyte. Private respondent in his Comment, contends that Tacloban was not petitioner's domicile of origin because she did not live there until she was eight years old. He avers that after leaving the place in 1952, she "abandoned her residency (sic) therein for many years and . . . (could not) reestablish her domicile in said place by merely expressing her intention to live there again." We do not agree. First, minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of law. This domicile was not established only when her father brought his family back to Leyte contrary to private respondent's averments. Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: 37 1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;

2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. Only with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time. 38 In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by private respondent plainly lacks the degree of persuasiveness required to convince this court that an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed occurred. To effect an abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner's former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing (domicilium voluntarium). In this connection, it cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. For there is a clearly established distinction between the Civil Code concepts of "domicile" and "residence." 39 The presumption that the wife automatically gains the husband's domicile by operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term "residence" in Article 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one area where the two concepts are well delineated. Dr. Arturo Tolentino, writing on this specific area explains: In the Civil Code, there is an obvious difference between domicile and residence. Both terms imply relations between a person and a place; but in residence, the relation is one of fact while in domicile it is legal or juridical, independent of the necessity of physical presence. 40 Article 110 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. A survey of jurisprudence relating to Article 110 or to the concepts of domicile or residence as they affect the female spouse upon marriage yields nothing which would suggest that the female spouse automatically loses her domicile of origin in favor of the husband's choice of residence upon marriage. Article 110 is a virtual restatement of Article 58 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 which states: La mujer esta obligada a seguir a su marido donde quiera que fije su residencia. Los Tribunales, sin embargo, podran con justa causa eximirla de esta obligacion cuando el marido transende su residencia a ultramar o' a pais extranjero. Note the use of the phrase "donde quiera su fije de residencia" in the aforequoted article, which means wherever (the husband) wishes to establish residence. This part of the article clearly contemplates only actual residence because it refers to a positive act of fixing a family home or

residence. Moreover, this interpretation is further strengthened by the phrase "cuando el marido translade su residencia" in the same provision which means, "when the husband shall transfer his residence," referring to another positive act of relocating the family to another home or place of actual residence. The article obviously cannot be understood to refer to domicile which is a fixed, fairly-permanent concept when it plainly connotes the possibility of transferring from one place to another not only once, but as often as the husband may deem fit to move his family, a circumstance more consistent with the concept of actual residence. The right of the husband to fix the actual residence is in harmony with the intention of the law to strengthen and unify the family, recognizing the fact that the husband and the wife bring into the marriage different domiciles (of origin). This difference could, for the sake of family unity, be reconciled only by allowing the husband to fix a single place of actual residence. Very significantly, Article 110 of the Civil Code is found under Title V under the heading: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. Immediately preceding Article 110 is Article 109 which obliges the husband and wife to live together, thus: Art. 109. The husband and wife are obligated to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support. The duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are physically together. This takes into account the situations where the couple has many residences (as in the case of the petitioner). If the husband has to stay in or transfer to any one of their residences, the wife should necessarily be with him in order that they may "live together." Hence, it is illogical to conclude that Art. 110 refers to "domicile" and not to "residence." Otherwise, we shall be faced with a situation where the wife is left in the domicile while the husband, for professional or other reasons, stays in one of their (various) residences. As Dr. Tolentino further explains: Residence and Domicile Whether the word "residence" as used with reference to particular matters is synonymous with "domicile" is a question of some difficulty, and the ultimate decision must be made from a consideration of the purpose and intent with which the word is used. Sometimes they are used synonymously, at other times they are distinguished from one another. xxx xxx xxx Residence in the civil law is a material fact, referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. A person can have two or more residences, such as a country residence and a city residence. Residence is acquired by living in place; on the other hand, domicile can exist without actually living in the place. The important thing for domicile is that, once residence has been established in one place, there be an intention to stay there permanently, even if residence is also established in some other place. 41 In fact, even the matter of a common residence between the husband and the wife during the marriage is not an iron-clad principle; In cases applying the Civil Code on the question of a

common matrimonial residence, our jurisprudence has recognized certain situations 42 where the spouses could not be compelled to live with each other such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence different from that of her husband or, for obviously practical reasons, revert to her original domicile (apart from being allowed to opt for a new one). In De la Vina vs. Villareal 43 this Court held that "[a] married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of the marriage where the husband has given cause for divorce." 44 Note that the Court allowed the wife either to obtain new residence or to choose a new domicile in such an event. In instances where the wife actually opts, .under the Civil Code, to live separately from her husband either by taking new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the Court has held that the wife could not be compelled to live with her husband on pain of contempt. In Arroyo vs. Vasques de Arroyo 45 the Court held that: Upon examination of the authorities, we are convinced that it is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Of course where the property rights of one of the pair are invaded, an action for restitution of such rights can be maintained. But we are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcible (sic) by process of contempt, may be entered to compel the restitution of the purely personal right of consortium. At best such an order can be effective for no other purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof; and he experience of those countries where the courts of justice have assumed to compel the cohabitation of married people shows that the policy of the practice is extremely questionable. Thus in England, formerly the Ecclesiastical Court entertained suits for the restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of either husband or wife; and if the facts were found to warrant it, that court would make a mandatory decree, enforceable by process of contempt in case of disobedience, requiring the delinquent party to live with the other and render conjugal rights. Yet this practice was sometimes criticized even by the judges who felt bound to enforce such orders, and in Weldon v. Weldon (9 P.D. 52), decided in 1883, Sir James Hannen, President in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, expressed his regret that the English law on the subject was not the same as that which prevailed in Scotland, where a decree of adherence, equivalent to the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights in England, could be obtained by the injured spouse, but could not be enforced by imprisonment. Accordingly, in obedience to the growing sentiment against the practice, the Matrimonial Causes Act (1884) abolished the remedy of imprisonment; though a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights can still be procured, and in case of disobedience may serve in appropriate cases as the basis of an order for the periodical payment of a stipend in the character of alimony. In the voluminous jurisprudence of the United States, only one court, so far as we can discover, has ever attempted to make a preemptory order requiring one of the spouses to live with the other; and that was in a case where a wife was ordered to follow and live with her husband, who had changed his domicile to the City of New Orleans. The decision referred to (Bahn v. Darby, 36 La. Ann., 70) was based on a provision of the Civil Code of Louisiana similar to article 56 of the Spanish Civil Code. It was decided many years ago, and the doctrine evidently has not been fruitful even in the State of Louisiana. In other states of the American Union the idea of enforcing cohabitation by process of contempt is rejected. (21 Cyc., 1148).

In a decision of January 2, 1909, the Supreme Court of Spain appears to have affirmed an order of the Audiencia Territorial de Valladolid requiring a wife to return to the marital domicile, and in the alternative, upon her failure to do so, to make a particular disposition of certain money and effects then in her possession and to deliver to her husband, as administrator of the ganancial property, all income, rents, and interest which might accrue to her from the property which she had brought to the marriage. (113 Jur. Civ., pp. 1, 11) But it does not appear that this order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile was sanctioned by any other penalty than the consequences that would be visited upon her in respect to the use and control of her property; and it does not appear that her disobedience to that order would necessarily have been followed by imprisonment for contempt. Parenthetically when Petitioner was married to then Congressman Marcos, in 1954, petitioner was obliged by virtue of Article 110 of the Civil Code to follow her husband's actual place of residence fixed by him. The problem here is that at that time, Mr. Marcos had several places of residence, among which were San Juan, Rizal and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing which of these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his family's residence. But assuming that Mr. Marcos had fixed any of these places as the conjugal residence, what petitioner gained upon marriage was actual residence. She did not lose her domicile of origin. On the other hand, the common law concept of "matrimonial domicile" appears to have been incorporated, as a result of our jurisprudential experiences after the drafting of the Civil Code of 1950, into the New Family Code. To underscore the difference between the intentions of the Civil Code and the Family Code drafters, the term residence has been supplanted by the term domicile in an entirely new provision (Art. 69) distinctly different in meaning and spirit from that found in Article 110. The provision recognizes revolutionary changes in the concept of women's rights in the intervening years by making the choice of domicile a product of mutual agreement between the spouses. 46 Without as much belaboring the point, the term residence may mean one thing in civil law (or under the Civil Code) and quite another thing in political law. What stands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is concerned-affecting the rights and obligations of husband and wife the term residence should only be interpreted to mean "actual residence." The inescapable conclusion derived from this unambiguous civil law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner married the former President in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium. Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin (assuming this was lost by operation of law) as her domicile. This "choice" was unequivocally expressed in her letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to "rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte. . . to make them livable for the Marcos family to have a home in our homeland." 47 Furthermore, petitioner obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte, while living in her brother's house, an act which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to the PCGG Chairman. She could not have gone straight to her home in

San Juan, as it was in a state of disrepair, having been previously looted by vandals. Her "homes" and "residences" following her arrival in various parts of Metro Manila merely qualified as temporary or "actual residences," not domicile. Moreover, and proceeding from our discussion pointing out specific situations where the female spouse either reverts to her domicile of origin or chooses a new one during the subsistence of the marriage, it would be highly illogical for us to assume that she cannot regain her original domicile upon the death of her husband absent a positive act of selecting a new one where situations exist within the subsistence of the marriage itself where the wife gains a domicile different from her husband. In the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile enunciated by this court up to this point, we are persuaded that the facts established by the parties weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion supporting petitioner's claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte. II. The jurisdictional issue Petitioner alleges that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC had already lapsed considering that the assailed resolutions were rendered on April 24, 1995, fourteen (14) days before the election in violation of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. 48 Moreover, petitioner contends that it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over the election of members of the House of Representatives in accordance with Article VI Sec. 17 of the Constitution. This is untenable. It is a settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, 49 "so that non-compliance with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it would have clearly indicated it." 50 The difference between a mandatory and a directory provision is often made on grounds of necessity. Adopting the same view held by several American authorities, this court in Marcelino vs. Cruz held that: 51 The difference between a mandatory and directory provision is often determined on grounds of expediency, the reason being that less injury results to the general public by disregarding than enforcing the letter of the law. In Trapp v. Mc Cormick, a case calling for the interpretation of a statute containing a limitation of thirty (30) days within which a decree may be entered without the consent of counsel, it was held that "the statutory provisions which may be thus departed from with impunity, without affecting the validity of statutory proceedings, are usually those which relate to the mode or time of doing that which is essential to effect the aim and purpose of the Legislature or some incident of the essential act." Thus, in said case, the statute under examination was construed merely to be directory. The mischief in petitioner's contending that the COMELEC should have abstained from rendering a decision after the period stated in the Omnibus Election Code because it lacked jurisdiction, lies in the fact that our courts and other quasi-judicial bodies would then refuse to

render judgments merely on the ground of having failed to reach a decision within a given or prescribed period. In any event, with the enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, 52 it is evident that the respondent Commission does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections. As to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's supposed assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of Representatives. 53 Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question. It would be an abdication of many of the ideals enshrined in the 1987 Constitution for us to either to ignore or deliberately make distinctions in law solely on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case. Obviously a distinction was made on such a ground here. Surely, many established principles of law, even of election laws were flouted for the sake perpetuating power during the pre-EDSA regime. We renege on these sacred ideals, including the meaning and spirit of EDSA ourselves bending established principles of principles of law to deny an individual what he or she justly deserves in law. Moreover, in doing so, we condemn ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past. WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte. SO ORDERED. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

PUNO, J., concurring:

It was Aristotle who taught mankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, while things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness. 1 Like other candidates, petitioner has clearly met the residence requirement provided by Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution. 2 We cannot disqualify her and treat her unalike, for the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. I proceed from the following factual and legal propositions: First. There is no question that petitioner's original domicile is in Tacloban, Leyte. Her parents were domiciled in Tacloban. Their ancestral house is in Tacloban. They have vast real estate in the place. Petitioner went to school and thereafter worked there. I consider Tacloban as her initial domicile, both her domicile of origin and her domicile of choice. Her domicile of origin as it was the domicile of her parents when she was a minor; and her domicile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of majority. Second. There is also no question that in May, 1954, petitioner married the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. By contracting marriage, her domicile became subject to change by law, and the right to change it was given by Article 110 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. 3 (Emphasis supplied) In De la Via v. Villareal and Geopano, 4 this Court explained why the domicile of the wife ought to follow that of the husband. We held: "The reason is founded upon the theoretic identity of person and interest between the husband and the wife, and the presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is intended to promote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists, where union and harmony prevail." 5 In accord with this objective, Article 109 of the Civil Code also obligated the husband and wife "to live together." Third. The difficult issues start as we determine whether petitioner's marriage to former President Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her Tacloban domicile. I respectfully submit that her marriage by itself alone did not cause her to lose her Tacloban domicile. Article 110 of the Civil Code merely gave the husband the right to fix the domicile of the family. In the exercise of the right, the husband may explicitly choose the prior domicile of his wife, in which case, the wife's domicile remains unchanged. The husband can also implicitly acquiesce to his wife's prior domicile even if it is different. So we held in de la Via, 6 . . . . When married women as well as children subject to parental authority live, with the acquiescence of their husbands or fathers, in a place distinct from where the latter live, they have their own independent domicile. . . . It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage but the deliberate choice of a different domicile by the husband that will change the domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domiciliary decision made by the husband in the exercise of the right conferred by Article 110 of the Civil Code binds the wife. Any and all acts of a wife during her coverture contrary to the

domiciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any way the domicile legally fixed by the husband. These acts are void not only because the wife lacks the capacity to choose her domicile but also because they are contrary to law and public policy. In the case at bench, it is not disputed that former President Marcos exercised his right to fix the family domicile and established it in Batac, Ilocos Norte, where he was then the congressman. At that particular point of time and throughout their married life, petitioner lost her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte. Since petitioner's Batac domicile has been fixed by operation of law, it was not affected in 1959 when her husband was elected as Senator, when they lived in San Juan, Rizal and where she registered as a voter. It was not also affected in 1965 when her husband was elected President, when they lived in Malacaang Palace, and when she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. Nor was it affected when she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila during the incumbency of her husband as President of the nation. Under Article 110 of the Civil Code, it was only her husband who could change the family domicile in Batac and the evidence shows he did not effect any such change. To a large degree, this follows the common law that "a woman on her marriage loses her own domicile and by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends." 7 Fourth. The more difficult task is how to interpret the effect of the death on September 28, 1989 of former President Marcos on petitioner's Batac domicile. The issue is of first impression in our jurisdiction and two (2) schools of thought contend for acceptance. One is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Davide, Jr., heavily relying on American authorities. 8 He echoes the theory that after the husband's death, the wife retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change. I do not subscribe to this submission. The American case law that the wife still retains her dead husband's domicile is based on ancient common law which we can no longer apply in the Philippine setting today. The common law identified the domicile of a wife as that of the husband and denied to her the power of acquiring a domicile of her own separate and apart from him. 9 Legal scholars agree that two (2) reasons support this common law doctrine. The first reason as pinpointed by the legendary Blackstone is derived from the view that "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." 10 The second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each member of the family unit governed by the same law." 11 The presumption that the wife retains the domicile of her deceased husband is an extension of this common law concept. The concept and its extension have provided some of the most iniquitous jurisprudence against women. It was under common law that the 1873 American case of Bradwell v. Illinois 12 was decided where women were denied the right to practice law. It was unblushingly ruled that "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life . . . This is the law of the Creator." Indeed, the rulings relied upon by Mr. Justice Davide in CJS 13 and AM JUR 2d 14 are American state court decisions handed down between the years 1917 15 and 1938, 16 or before the time when women were accorded equality of rights with men. Undeniably, the women's liberation movement resulted in far-ranging state legislations in the United States to eliminate gender inequality. 17 Starting in the decade of the seventies, the courts

likewise liberalized their rulings as they started invalidating laws infected with gender-bias. It was in 1971 when the US Supreme Court in Reed v. Reed, 18 struck a big blow for women equality when it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho law that required probate courts to choose male family members over females as estate administrators. It held that mere administrative inconvenience cannot justify a sex-based distinction. These significant changes both in law and in case law on the status of women virtually obliterated the iniquitous common law surrendering the rights of married women to their husbands based on the dubious theory of the parties' theoretic oneness. The Corpus Juris Secundum editors did not miss the relevance of this revolution on women's right as they observed: "However, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of married women and departing from the common law theory of marriage, there is no reason why a wife may not acquire a separate domicile for every purpose known to the law." 19 In publishing in 1969 the Restatement of the Law, Second (Conflict of Laws 2d), the reputable American Law Institute also categorically stated that the view of Blackstone ". . . is no longer held. As the result of statutes and court decisions, a wife now possesses practically the same rights and powers as her unmarried sister." 20 In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we should continue clinging to the anachronistic common law that demeans women, especially married women. I submit that the Court has no choice except to break away from this common law rule, the root of the many degradations of Filipino women. Before 1988, our laws particularly the Civil Code, were full of gender discriminations against women. Our esteemed colleague, Madam Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, cited a few of them as follows: 21 xxx xxx xxx Legal Disabilities Suffered by Wives Not generally known is the fact that under the Civil Code, wives suffer under certain restrictions or disabilities. For instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the value of the gift, other than from her very close relatives, without her husband's consent. She may accept only from, say, her parents, parents-in-law, brothers, sisters and the relatives within the so-called fourth civil degree. She may not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband objects on serious grounds or if his income is sufficient to support their family in accordance with their social standing. As to what constitutes "serious grounds" for objecting, this is within the discretion of the husband. xxx xxx xxx Because of the present inequitable situation, the amendments to the Civil Law being proposed by the University of the Philippines Law Center would allow absolute divorce which severes the matrimonial ties, such that the divorced spouses are free to get married a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts. However, in order to place the husband and wife on an equal footing insofar as the bases for divorce are concerned, the following are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce: (1) adultery or having a paramour committed by the respondent in any of the ways specified in the Revised Penal Code or (2) an attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner which amounts to attempted parricide under the Revised Penal Code; (3)

abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without just cause for a period of three consecutive years; or (4) habitual maltreatment. With respect to property relations, the husband is automatically the administrator of the conjugal property owned in common by the married couple even if the wife may be the more astute or enterprising partner. The law does not leave it to the spouses to decide who shall act as such administrator. Consequently, the husband is authorized to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the conjugal partnership. The wife, however, cannot similarly bind the partnership without the husband's consent. And while both exercise joint parental authority over their children, it is the father whom the law designates as the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the unemancipated child. Taking the lead in Asia, our government exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to eliminate inequality between men and women in our land. The watershed came on August 3, 1988 when our Family Code took effect which, among others, terminated the unequal treatment of husband and wife as to their rights and responsibilities. 22 The Family Code attained this elusive objective by giving new rights to married women and by abolishing sex-based privileges of husbands. Among others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the family property, whether in the absolute community system or in the system of conjugal partnership; 23 joint parental authority over their minor children, both over their persons as well as their properties; 24 joint responsibility for the support of the family; 25 the right to jointly manage the household; 26 and, the right to object to their husband's exercise of profession, occupation, business or activity. 27 Of particular relevance to the case at bench is Article 69 of the Family Code which took away the exclusive right of the husband to fix the family domicile and gave it jointly to the husband and the wife, thus: Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (Emphasis supplied) Article 69 repealed Article 110 of the Civil Code. Commenting on the duty of the husband and wife to live together, former Madam Justice Alice Sempio-Diy of the Court of Appeals specified the instances when a wife may now refuse to live with her husband, thus: 28 (2) The wife has the duty to live with her husband, but she may refuse to do so in certain cases like: (a) If the place chosen by the husband as family residence is dangerous to her Life; (b) If the husband subjects her to maltreatment or abusive conduct or insults, making common life impossible;

(c) If the husband compels her to live with his parents, but she cannot get along with her motherin-law and they have constant quarrels (Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, CA, 46 OG 6122); (d) Where the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for 10 years with different women and treated his wife roughly and without consideration. (Dadivas v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 92); (e) Where the husband spent his time in gambling, giving no money to his family for food and necessities, and at the same time insulting his wife and laying hands on her. (Panuncio v. Sula, CA, 34 OG 129); (f) If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tramp (1 Manresa 329); (g) If the husband is carrying on a shameful business at home (Gahn v. Darby, 38 La. Ann. 70). The inescapable conclusion is that our Family Code has completely emancipated the wife from the control of the husband, thus abandoning the parties' theoretic identity of interest. No less than the late revered Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes who chaired the Civil Code Revision Committee of the UP Law Center gave this insightful view in one of his rare lectures after retirement: 29 xxx xxx xxx The Family Code is primarily intended to reform the family law so as to emancipate the wife from the exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity with him insofar as the family is concerned. The wife and the husband are now placed on equal standing by the Code. They are now joint administrators of the family properties and exercise joint authority over the persons and properties of their children. This means a dual authority in the family. The husband will no longer prevail over the wife but she has to agree on all matters concerning the family. (Emphasis supplied) In light of the Family Code which abrogated the inequality between husband and wife as started and perpetuated by the common law, there is no reason in espousing the anomalous rule that the wife still retains the domicile of her dead husband. Article 110 of the Civil Code which provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by Article 69 of the Family Code. By its repeal, it becomes a dead-letter law, and we are not free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any way or manner such as by ruling that the petitioner is still bound by the domiciliary determination of her dead husband. Aside from reckoning with the Family Code, we have to consider our Constitution and its firm guarantees of due process and equal protection of law. 30 It can hardly be doubted that the common law imposition on a married woman of her dead husband's domicile even beyond his grave is patently discriminatory to women. It is a gender-based discrimination and is not rationally related to the objective of promoting family solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, compared with our previous fundamental laws, the 1987 Constitution is more concerned with equality between sexes as it explicitly commands that the State ". . . shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of

women and men." To be exact, section 14, Article II provides: "The State recognizes the role of women in nation building, and shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men. We shall be transgressing the sense and essence of this constitutional mandate if we insist on giving our women the caveman's treatment. Prescinding from these premises, I respectfully submit that the better stance is to rule that petitioner reacquired her Tacloban domicile upon the death of her husband in 1989. This is the necessary consequence of the view that petitioner's Batac dictated domicile did not continue after her husband's death; otherwise, she would have no domicile and that will violate the universal rule that no person can be without a domicile at any point of time. This stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her domicile before it was taken away by Article 110 of the Civil Code, a right now recognized by the Family Code and protected by the Constitution. Likewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common law requiring petitioner to choose again her Tacloban domicile before she could be released from her Batac domicile. She lost her Tacloban domicile not through her act but through the act of her deceased husband when he fixed their domicile in Batac. Her husband is dead and he cannot rule her beyond the grave. The law disabling her to choose her own domicile has been repealed. Considering all these, common law should not put the burden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead husband's domicile. There is neither rhyme nor reason for this gender-based burden. But even assuming arguendo that there is need for convincing proof that petitioner chose to reacquire her Tacloban domicile, still, the records reveal ample evidence to this effect. In her affidavit submitted to the respondent COMELEC, petitioner averred: xxx xxx xxx 36. In November, 1991, I came home to our beloved country, after several requests for my return were denied by President Corazon C. Aquino, and after I filed suits for our Government to issue me my passport. 37. But I came home without the mortal remains of my beloved husband, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which the Government considered a threat to the national security and welfare. 38. Upon my return to the country, I wanted to immediately live and reside in Tacloban City or in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, even if my residences there were not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibalized. The PCGG, however, did not permit and allow me. 39. As a consequence, I had to live at various times in the Westin Philippine Plaza in Pasay City, a friend's apartment on Ayala Avenue, a house in South Forbes Park which my daughter rented, and Pacific Plaza, all in Makati. 40. After the 1992 Presidential Elections, I lived and resided in the residence of my brother in San Jose, Tacloban City, and pursued my negotiations with PCGG to recover my sequestered residences in Tacloban City and Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

40.1 In preparation for my observance of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day that year, I renovated my parents' burial grounds and entombed their bones which had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered. 41. On November 29, 1993, I formally wrote PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for permissions to . . . rehabilitate . . . (o)ur ancestral house in Tacloban and farmhouse in Olot, Leyte . . . to make them livable for us the Marcos family to have a home in our own motherland. xxx xxx xxx 42. It was only on 06 June 1994, however, when PCGG Chairman Gunigundo, in his letter to Col. Simeon Kempis, Jr., PCGG Region 8 Representative, allowed me to repair and renovate my Leyte residences. I quote part of his letter: Dear Col. Kempis, Upon representation by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos to this Commission, that she intends to visit our sequestered properties in Leyte, please allow her access thereto. She may also cause repairs and renovation of the sequestered properties, in which event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not authorization for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not reimbursable. Please extend the necessary courtesy to her. xxx xxx xxx 43. I was not permitted, however, to live and stay in the Sto. Nio Shrine residence in Tacloban City where I wanted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations were completed. In August 1994, I transferred from San Jose, Tacloban City, to my residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, when PCGG permitted me to stay and live there. It is then clear that in 1992 petitioner reestablished her domicile in the First District of Leyte. It is not disputed that in 1992, she first lived at the house of her brother in San Jose, Tacloban City and later, in August 1994, she transferred her residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. Both Tacloban City and the municipality of Olot are within the First District of Leyte. Since petitioner reestablished her old domicile in 1992 in the First District of Leyte, she more than complied with the constitutional requirement of residence ". . . for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election," i.e., the May 8, 1995 elections. The evidence presented by the private respondent to negate the Tacloban domicile of petitioner is nil. He presented petitioner's Voter's Registration Record filed with the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 10-A of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte wherein she stated that her period of residence in said barangay was six (6) months as of the date of her filing of said Voter's Registration Record on January 28, 1995. 31 This statement in petitioner's Voter's Registration

Record is a non-prejudicial admission. The Constitution requires at least one (1) year residence in the district in which the candidate shall be elected. In the case at bench, the reference is the First District of Leyte. Petitioner's statement proved that she resided in Olot six (6) months before January 28, 1995 but did not disprove that she has also resided in Tacloban City starting 1992. As aforestated, Olot and Tacloban City are both within the First District of Leyte, hence, her six (6) months residence in Olot should be counted not against, but in her favor. Private respondent also presented petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 32 where she placed seven (7) months after Item No. 8 which called for information regarding "residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Again, this original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary value because an March 1, 1995 it was corrected by petitioner. In her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, 33 petitioner wrote "since childhood" after Item No. 8. The amendment of a certificate of candidacy to correct a bona fide mistake has been allowed by this Court as a matter of course and as a matter of right. As we held in Alialy v. COMELEC, 34 viz.: xxx xxx xxx The absence of the signature of the Secretary of the local chapter N.P in the original certificate of candidacy presented before the deadline September 11, 1959, did not render the certificate invalid. The amendment of the certificate, although at a date after the deadline, but before the election, was substantial compliance with the law, and the defect was cured. It goes without saying that petitioner's erroneous Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 cannot be used as evidence against her. Private respondent's petition for the disqualification of petitioner rested alone on these two (2) brittle pieces of documentary evidence petitioner's Voter's Registration Record and her original Certificate of Candidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her ceaseless contacts with Tacloban, private respondent's two (2) pieces of evidence are too insufficient to disqualify petitioner, more so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the First District of Leyte who have overwhelmingly voted for her. Fifth. Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that "bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." 35 A detached reading of the records of the case at bench will show that all forms of legal and extra-legal obstacles have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people's representative in the First District of Leyte. In petitioner's Answer to the petition to disqualify her, she averred: 36 xxx xxx xxx 10. Petitioner's (herein private respondent Montejo) motive in filing the instant petition is devious. When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, petitioner (Montejo) immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." (Annex "2" of respondent's affidavit, Annex "2"). After respondent (petitioner herein) had registered as a voter in Tolosa following

completion of her six-month actual residence therein, petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such move up to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 118702, his purpose being to remove respondent (petitioner herein) as petitioner's (Montejo's) opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking to create another legislative district, to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having, failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition, for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit himself along with respondent (petitioner herein) for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995. These allegations which private respondent did not challenge were not lost to the perceptive eye of Commissioner Maambong who in his Dissenting Opinion, 37 held: xxx xxx xxx Prior to the registration date January 28, 1995 the petitioner (herein private respondent Montejo) wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban City not to allow respondent (petitioner herein) to register thereat since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban City. The purpose of this move of the petitioner (Montejo) is not lost to (sic) the Commission. In UND No. 95-001 (In the matter of the Legislative Districts of the Provinces of Leyte, Iloilo, and South Cotabato, Out of Which the New Provinces of Biliran, Guimaras and Saranggani Were Respectively Created), . . . Hon. Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, Representative, First District of Leyte, wanted the Municipality of Tolosa, in the First District of Leyte, transferred to the Second District of Leyte. The Hon. Sergio A.F. Apostol, Representative of the Second District of Leyte, opposed the move of the petitioner (Montejo). Under Comelec Resolution No. 2736 (December 29, 1994), the Commission on Elections refused to make the proposed transfer. Petitioner (Montejo) filed "Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 2736" which the Commission denied in a Resolution promulgated on February 1, 1995. Petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition for certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court (Cirilo Roy G. Montejo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 118702) questioning the resolution of the Commission. Believing that he could get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, petitioner (Montejo) tried to make sure that the respondent (petitioner herein) will register as a voter in Tolosa so that she will be forced to run as Representative not in the First but in the Second District. It did not happen. On March 16, 1995, the Honorable Supreme Court unanimously promulgated a "Decision," penned by Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW WHEREOF, Section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 insofar as it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of the province of Leyte, is annulled and set aside. We also deny the Petition praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte. No costs.

Petitioner's (Montejo's) plan did not work. But the respondent (petitioner herein) was constrained to register in the Municipality of Tolosa where her house is instead of Tacloban City, her domicile. In any case, both Tacloban City and Tolosa are in the First Legislative District. All these attempts to misuse our laws and legal processes are forms of rank harassments and invidious discriminations against petitioner to deny her equal access to a public office. We cannot commit any hermeneutic violence to the Constitution by torturing the meaning of equality, the end result of which will allow the harassment and discrimination of petitioner who has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shadow. There is but one Constitution for all Filipinos. Petitioner cannot be adjudged by a "different" Constitution, and the worst way to interpret the Constitution is to inject in its interpretation, bile and bitterness. Sixth. In Gallego v. Vera, 38 we explained that the reason for this residence requirement is "to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted, with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community . . . ." Petitioner's lifetime contacts with the First District of Leyte cannot be contested. Nobody can claim that she is not acquainted with its problems because she is a stranger to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the Constitution. Seventh. In resolving election cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effectuate the will of the electorate. The election results show that petitioner received Seventy Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-one (70,471) votes, while private respondent got only Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three (36,833) votes. Petitioner is clearly the overwhelming choice of the electorate of the First District of Leyte and this is not a sleight of statistics. We cannot frustrate this sovereign will on highly arguable technical considerations. In case of doubt, we should lean towards a rule that will give life to the people's political judgment. A final point. The case at bench provides the Court with the rare opportunity to rectify the inequality of status between women and men by rejecting the iniquitous common law precedents on the domicile of married women and by redefining domicile in accord with our own culture, law, and Constitution. To rule that a married woman is eternally tethered to the domicile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and anomalous balance of advantage of a husband over his wife. We should not allow the dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the dead! The Family Code buried this gender-based discrimination against married women and we should not excavate what has been entombed. More importantly, the Constitution forbids it. I vote to grant the petition. Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur. FRANCISCO, J., concurring: I concur with Mr. Justice Kapunan's ponencia finding petitioner qualified for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. I wish, however, to express a few comments on the issue of petitioner's domicile.

Domicile has been defined as that place in which a person's habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom, and that place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home (28 C.J.S. 1). It denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business, or pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966, 969) Domicile is classified into domicile of origin and domicile of choice. The law attributes to every individual a domicile of origin, which is the domicile of his parents, or of the head of his family, or of the person on whom he is legally dependent at the time of his birth. While the domicile of origin is generally the place where one is born or reared, it maybe elsewhere (28 C.J.S. 5). Domicile of choice, on the other hand, is the place which the person has elected and chosen for himself to displace his previous domicile; it has for its true basis or foundation the intention of the person (28 C.J.S. 6). In order to hold that a person has abandoned his domicile and acquired a new one called domicile of choice, the following requisites must concur, namely, (a) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (b) intention to remain there or animus manendi, and (c) an intention to abandon the old domicile or animus non revertendi (Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 226 SCRA 408, 415). A third classification is domicile by operation of law which attributes to a person a domicile independent of his own intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting from legal domestic relations, as that of the wife arising from marriage, or the relation of a parent and a child (28 C.J.S. 7). In election law, when our Constitution speaks of residence for election purposes it means domicile (Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, 713; Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645, 651). To my mind, public respondent Commission on Elections misapplied this concept, of domicile which led to petitioner's disqualification by ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the constitutionally mandated one-year residence requirement. Apparently, public respondent Commission deemed as conclusive petitioner's stay and registration as voter in many places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon her established domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. In several decisions, though, the Court has laid down the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of origin is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence (Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294, 300). Respondent Commission offered no cogent reason to depart from this rule except to surmise petitioner's intent of abandoning her domicile of origin. It has been suggested that petitioner's domicile of origin was supplanted by a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile by operation of law. The proposition is that upon the death of her husband in 1989 she retains her husband's domicile, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, until she makes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition quite untenable. Tacloban, Leyte, is petitioner's domicile of origin which was involuntarily supplanted with another, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, upon her marriage in 1954 with then Congressman Marcos. By legal fiction she followed the domicile of her husband. In my view, the reason for the law is for the spouses to fully and effectively perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The question of domicile, however, is not affected by the fact that it was the legal or moral duty

of the individual to reside in a given place (28 C.J.S. 11). Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as the marriage subsists, she automatically loses it upon the latter's termination, for the reason behind the law then ceases. Otherwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended by the death of her husband, would be placed in a quite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifely obligations yet made to hold on to one which no longer serves any meaningful purpose. It is my view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile of Tacloban, Leyte upon her husband's death without even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively abandoned Tacloban, Leyte for Batac, Ilocos Norte or for some other place/s. The clear rule is that it is the party (herein private respondent) claiming that a person has abandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and prove preponderantly such abandonment or loss (Faypon v. Quirino, supra at 298; 28 C.J.S. 16), because the presumption is strongly in favor of an original or former domicile, as against an acquired one (28 C.J.S. 16). Private respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has acquired whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin. The records, on the contrary, clearly show that petitioner has complied with the constitutional one-year residence requirement. After her exile abroad, she returned to the Philippines in 1991 to reside in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, but the Presidential Commission on Good Government which sequestered her residential house and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila (Affidavit p.6, attached as Annex I of the Petition). In 1992, she ran for the position of president writing in her certificate of candidacy her residence as San Juan, Metro Manila. After her loss therein, she went back to Tacloban City, acquired her residence certificate 2 and resided with her brother in San Jose. She resided in San Jose, Tacloban City until August of 1994 when she was allowed by the PCGG to move and reside in her sequestered residential house in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 6). 3 It was in the same month of August when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila in order to register anew as voter of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, which she did on January 28, 1995. From this sequence of events, I find it quite improper to use as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the 1992 presidential election from San Juan, Metro Manila to San Jose, Tacloban City, and resided therein until August of 1994. She later transferred to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 7). It appearing that both Tacloban City and Tolosa, Leyte are within the First Congressional District of Leyte, it indubitably stands that she had more than a year of residence in the constituency she sought to be elected. Petitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily complied with the one-year qualification required by the 1987 Constitution. I vote to grant the petition. ROMERO, J., separate opinion:

Petitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the COMELEC ruled that she was disqualified from running for Representative of her District and that, in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a majority vote, her proclamation should be suspended. Not by a straightforward ruling did the COMELEC pronounce its decision as has been its unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse somersaults." Indicative of its shifting stance vis-a-vis petitioner's certificate of candidacy were first, the action of its Second Division disqualifying her and canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy by a vote of 2-1 on April 24, 1995; then the denial by the COMELEC en banc of her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, 1995, a day before the election; then because she persisted in running, its decision on May 11, 1995 or three days after the election, allowing her proclamation in the event that the results of the canvass should show that she obtained the highest number of votes (obviously noting that petitioner had won overwhelmingly over her opponent), but almost simultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she wins, her proclamation should nonetheless be suspended. Crucial to the resolution of the disqualification issue presented by the case at bench is the interpretation to be given to the one-year residency requirement imposed by the Constitution on aspirants for a Congressional seat. 1 Bearing in mind that the term "resident" has been held to be synonymous with "domicile" for election purposes, it is important to determine whether petitioner's domicile was in the First District of Leyte and if so, whether she had resided there for at least a period of one year. Undisputed is her domicile of origin, Tacloban, where her parents lived at the time of her birth. Depending on what theory one adopts, the same may have been changed when she married Ferdinand E. Marcos, then domiciled in Batac, by operation of law. Assuming it did, his death certainly released her from the obligation to live with him at the residence fixed by him during his lifetime. What may confuse the layman at this point is the fact that the term "domicile" may refer to "domicile of origin," "domicile of choice," or "domicile by operation of law," which subject we shall not belabor since it has been amply discussed by the ponente and in the other separate opinions. In any case, what assumes relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of the husband's death on the domicile of the widow. Some scholars opine that the widow's domicile remains unchanged; that the deceased husband's wishes perforce still bind the wife he has left behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot possibly go far enough to sever the domiciliary tie imposed by her husband. It is bad enough to interpret the law as empowering the husband unilaterally to fix the residence or domicile of the family, as laid down in the Civil Code, 2 but to continue giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationale underlying the mutual duty of the spouses to live together has ceased, is to close one's eyes to the stark realities of the present. At the other extreme is the position that the widow automatically reverts to her domicile of origin upon the demise of her husband. Does the law so abhor a vacuum that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domicile? To answer this question which is far from rhetorical, one will have to keep in mind the basic principles of domicile. Everyone must have a domicile. Then

one must have only a single domicile for the same purpose at any given time. Once established, a domicile remains until a new one is acquired, for no person lives who has no domicile, as defined by the law be is subject to. At this juncture, we are confronted with an unexplored legal terrain in this jurisdiction, rendered more murky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opportune to illumine the darkness with the beacon light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right to choose her domicile in keeping with the enlightened global trend to recognize and protect the human rights of women, no less than men. Admittedly, the notion of placing women at par with men, insofar as civil, political and social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent phenomenon that took seed only in the middle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the Philippines had been colonized by Spain, a conservative, Catholic country which transplanted to our shores the Old World cultures, mores and attitudes and values. Through the imposition on our government of the Spanish Civil Code in 1889, the people, both men and women, had no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband's being the head of the family and the wife's subordination to his authority. In such role, his was the right to make vital decisions for the family. Many instances come to mind, foremost being what is related to the issue before us, namely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the family." 3 Because he is made responsible for the support of the wife and the rest of the family, 4 he is also empowered to be the administrator of the conjugal property, with a few exceptions 5 and may, therefore, dispose of the conjugal partnership property for the purposes specified under the law; 6 whereas, as a general rule, the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent. 7 As regards the property pertaining to the children under parental authority, the father is the legal administrator and only in his absence may the mother assume his powers. 8 Demeaning to the wife's dignity are certain strictures on her personal freedoms, practically relegating her to the position of minors and disabled persons. To illustrate a few: The wife cannot, without the husband's consent, acquire any gratuitous title, except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the fourth degree. 9 With respect to her employment, the husband wields a veto power in the case the wife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in business, provided his income is sufficient for the family, according to its social standing and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds. 10 Most offensive, if not repulsive, to the liberal-minded is the effective prohibition upon a widow to get married till after three hundred days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime, she has given birth to a child. 11 The mother who contracts a subsequent marriage loses the parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband, father of the latter, has expressly provided in his will that his widow might marry again, and has ordered that in such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children. 12 Again, an instance of a husband's overarching influence from beyond the grave. All these indignities and disabilities suffered by Filipino wives for hundreds of years evoked no protest from them until the concept of human rights and equality between and among nations and individuals found hospitable lodgment in the United Nations Charter of which the Philippines was one of the original signatories. By then, the Spanish "conquistadores" had been overthrown by the American forces at the turn of the century. The bedrock of the U.N. Charter was firmly

anchored on this credo: "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." (Emphasis supplied) It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, owing largely to the burgeoning of the feminist movement. What may be regarded as the international bill of rights for women was implanted in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly which entered into force as an international treaty on September 3, 1981. In ratifying the instrument, the Philippines bound itself to implement its liberating spirit and letter, for its Constitution, no less, declared that "The Philippines. . . adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." 13 One such principle embodied in the CEDAW is granting to men and women "the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile." 14 (Emphasis supplied). CEDAW's pro-women orientation which was not lost on Filipino women was reflected in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and later, in the Family Code, 15 both of which were speedily approved by the first lady President of the country, Corazon C. Aquino. Notable for its emphasis on the human rights of all individuals and its bias for equality between the sexes are the following provisions: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights" 16 and "The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men." 17 A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; 18 concomitant to the spouses' being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; 19 the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; 20 the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child 21 and several others. Aware of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the law, insofar as women's rights are concerned, Congress passed a law popularly known as "Women in Development and Nation Building Act" 22 Among the rights given to married women evidencing their capacity to act in contracts equal to that of men are: (1) Women shall have the capacity to borrow and obtain loans and execute security and credit arrangements under the same conditions as men; (2) Women shall have equal access to all government and private sector programs granting agricultural credit, loans and non material resources and shall enjoy equal treatment in agrarian reform and land resettlement programs; (3) Women shall have equal rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts; and

(4) Married women shall have rights equal to those of married men in applying for passports, secure visas and other travel documents, without need to secure the consent of their spouses. As the world draws the curtain on the Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, let this Court now be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Women's Rights are Human Rights" and that "All obstacles to women's full participation in decision-making at all levels, including the family" should be removed. Having been herself a Member of the Philippine Delegation to the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico in 1975, this writer is only too keenly aware of the unremitting struggle being waged by women the world over, Filipino women not excluded, to be accepted as equals of men and to tear down the walls of discrimination that hold them back from their proper places under the sun. In light of the inexorable sweep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and judicial, according more rights to women hitherto denied them and eliminating whatever pockets of discrimination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be insisted that widows are not at liberty to choose their domicile upon the death of their husbands but must retain the same, regardless? I submit that a widow, like the petitioner and others similarly situated, can no longer be bound by the domicile of the departed husband, if at all she was before. Neither does she automatically revert to her domicile of origin, but exercising free will, she may opt to reestablish her domicile of origin. In returning to Tacloban and subsequently, to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, both of which are located in the First District of Leyte, petitioner amply demonstrated by overt acts, her election of a domicile of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domicile of origin. Added together, the time when she set up her domicile in the two places sufficed to meet the one-year requirement to run as Representative of the First District of Leyte. In view of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to GRANT the petition. VITUG, J., separate opinion: The case at bench deals with explicit Constitutional mandates. The Constitution is not a pliable instrument. It is a bedrock in our legal system that sets up ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to ensure that mistakes in the past are not repeated. A compliant transience of a constitution belittles its basic function and weakens its goals. A constitution may well become outdated by the realities of time. When it does, it must be changed but while it remains, we owe it respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor must it ever be, the answer to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the Constitution might lose its very essence. Constitutional provisions must be taken to be mandatory in character unless, either by express statement or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest (see Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51).

The two provisions initially brought to focus are Section 6 and Section 17 of Article VI of the fundamental law. These provisions read: Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. The Commission on Election (the "COMELEC") is constitutionally bound to enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." (Art. IX, C, Sec. 2, Constitution) that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to pass upon the qualification and disqualification prescribed by law of candidates to an elective office. Indeed, pre-proclamation controversies are expressly placed under the COMELEC's jurisdiction to hear and resolve (Art. IX, C, Sec. 3, Constitution). The matter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one-year residency requirement. The issue (whether or not there is here such compliance), to my mind, is basically a question of fact or at least inextricably linked to such determination. The findings and judgment of the COMELEC, in accordance with the long established rule and subject only to a number of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of discretion," are not reviewable by this Court. I do not find much need to do a complex exercise on what seems to me to be a plain matter. Generally, the term "residence" has a broader connotation that may mean permanent (domicile), official (place where one's official duties may require him to stay) or temporary (the place where he sojourns during a considerable length of time). For civil law purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence (see Article 50, Civil Code). In election cases, the controlling rule is that heretofore announced by this Court in Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City (226 SCRA 408, 409); thus: In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous with "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence

thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the COMELEC with having committed grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution. The COMELEC's jurisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee must have theretofore been duly proclaimed and has since become a "member" of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The question can be asked on whether or not the proclamation of a candidate is just a ministerial function of the Commission on Elections dictated solely on the number of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A ministerial duty is an obligation the performance of which, being adequately defined, does not allow the use of further judgment or discretion. The COMELEC, in its particular case, is tasked with the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as may be required by law before a proclamation is properly done. The Court, on its part, should, in my view at least, refrain from any undue encroachment on the ultimate exercise of authority by the Electoral Tribunals on matters which, by no less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly within their exclusive domain. The nagging question, if it were otherwise, would be the effect of the Court's peremptory pronouncement on the ability of the Electoral Tribunal to later come up with its own judgment in a contest "relating to the election, returns and qualification" of its members. Prescinding from all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to this case of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, in relation to Section 72 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, each providing thusly: REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6646 xxx xxx xxx Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. 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.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881 xxx xxx xxx Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought. 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. Nevertheless, 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, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office. I realize that in considering the significance of the law, it may be preferable to look for not so much the specific instances they ostensibly would cover as the principle they clearly convey. Thus, I will not scoff at the argument that it should be sound to say that votes cast in favor of the disqualified candidate, whenever ultimately declared as such, should not be counted in his or her favor and must accordingly be considered to be stray votes. The argument, nevertheless, is far outweighed by the rationale of the now prevailing doctrine first enunciated in the case of Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238 [1912]) which, although later abandoned in Ticzon vs. Comelec (103 SCRA 687 [1981]), and Santos vs. COMELEC (137 SCRA 740 [1985]), was restored, along with the interim case of Geronimo vs. Ramos (136 SCRA 435 [1985]), by the Labo (176 SCRA 1 (1989]), Abella (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), Labo (211 SCRA 297 [1992]) and, most recently, Benito (235 SCRA 436 [1994]) rulings. Benito vs. Comelec was a unanimous decision penned by Justice Kapunan and concurred in by Chief Justice Narvasa, Justices Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Mendoza (Justices Cruz and Bellosillo were on official leave). For easy reference, let me quote from the first Labo decision: 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, (137 SCRA 740) 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 noncandidate, were all disregard as stray. In effect, the second placer won by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then, (Cuevas, J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay and Aquino, JJ., concurring.) with three dissenting (Teehankee, Acting C.J., Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.) and another two reserving their vote. (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.) One was on official leave. (Fernando, C.J.)

Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier case of Geronimo v. Ramos, (136 SCRA 435) which represents the more logical and democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 in Topacio v. Paredes, (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court, (Gutierrez, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concurring) without any dissent, although one reserved his vote, (Makasiar, J.) another took no part, (Aquino, J.) and two others were on leave. (Fernando, C.J. and Concepcion, Jr., J.) 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 non-eligible 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. (at pp. 20-21) Considering all the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissal of the petition. MENDOZA, J., separate opinion: In my view the issue in this case is whether the Commission on Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to which they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the qualifications of candidates may be questioned only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo warranto or an election protest in the appropriate forum, not necessarily in the COMELEC but, as in this case, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the COMELEC is of no moment. Such proceedings were unauthorized and were not rendered valid by their agreement to submit their dispute to that body. The various election laws will be searched in vain for authorized proceedings for determining a candidate's qualifications for an office before his election. There are none in the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), in the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646), or in the law providing for synchronized elections (R.A. No. 7166). There are, in other words, no

provisions for pre-proclamation contests but only election protests or quo warranto proceedings against winning candidates. To be sure, there are provisions denominated for "disqualification," but they are not concerned with a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacity (due to insanity, incompetence or conviction of an offense) of a person either to be a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. There is also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only to cases involving false representations as to certain matters required by law to be stated in the certificates. These provisions are found in the following parts of the Omnibus Election Code: 12. Disqualifications. Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis added) 68. Disqualifications. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Emphasis added) 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 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 twenty-five 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. (Emphasis added) the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646):

 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. 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 for 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 added). 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. and the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160): 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; (b) Those removed from office as a result of on administrative case; (c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic; (d) Those with dual citizenship; (e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad; (f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and (g) The insane or feeble-minded. The petition filed by private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo in the COMELEC, while entitled "For Cancellation and Disqualification," contained no allegation that private respondent Imelda Romualdez-Marcos made material representations in her certificate of candidacy which were false, it sought her disqualification on the ground that "on the basis of her Voter Registration Record and Certificate of Candidacy, [she] is disqualified from running for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 8, 1995, [she] would have resided less than ten (10) months in the district where she is seeking to be elected." For its part, the COMELEC's Second Division, in its resolution of April 24, 1995, cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of its finding that petitioner is "not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte" and not because of any finding that she had made false representations as to material matters in her certificate of candidacy.

Montejo's petition before the COMELEC was therefore not a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy under 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but essentially a petition to declare private respondent ineligible. It is important to note this, because, as will presently be explained, proceedings under 78 have for their purpose to disqualify a person from being a candidate, whereas quo warranto proceedings have for their purpose to disqualify a person from holding public office. Jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings involving members of the House of Representatives is vested in the Electoral Tribunal of that body. Indeed, in the only cases in which this Court dealt with petitions for the cancellation of certificates of candidacy, the allegations were that the respondent candidates had made false representations in their certificates of candidacy with regard to their citizenship, 1 age, 2 or residence. 3 But in the generality of cases in which this Court passed upon the qualifications of respondents for office, this Court did so in the context of election protests 4 or quo warranto proceedings 5 filed after the proclamation of the respondents or protestees as winners. Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of an authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of a candidate. First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for determining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts) is a prejudicial question which should be determined lest he wins because of the very acts for which his disqualification is being sought. That is why it is provided that if the grounds for disqualification are established, a candidate will not be voted for; if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor will not be counted; and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he will not be proclaimed or his proclamation will be set aside. 6 Second is the fact that the determination of a candidate's eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this case, his domicile, may take a long time to make, extending beyond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amply demonstrated in the companion case (G.R. No. 120265, Agapito A. Aquino v. COMELEC) where the determination of Aquino's residence was still pending in the COMELEC even after the elections of May 8, 1995. This is contrary to the summary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy. That is why the law makes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its officers. 7 The law is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidacy that they are eligible for the position which they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their qualifications to be made after the election and only in the event they are elected. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in certificates of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction. Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, 15) The purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other Tribunals as "sole judges" under the Constitution of the election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress or of the President and Vice President, as the case may be.

By providing in 253 for the remedy of quo warranto for determining an elected official's qualifications after the results of elections are proclaimed, while being conspicuously silent about a pre-proclamation remedy based on the same ground, the Omnibus Election Code, or OEC, by its silence underscores the policy of not authorizing any inquiry into the qualifications of candidates unless they have been elected. Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, the COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, 1993 so as to provide in Rule 25, 1 the following: Grounds for disqualification. Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate. The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive matter which the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rulemaking power under Art. IX, A, 6 of the Constitution, cannot do. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence and citizenship of voters. (Art. IX, C, 2(3)) The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not only in their grounds but also in their consequences are proceedings for "disqualification" different from those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and in 40 of the Local Government Code and are for the purpose of barring an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a word, their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove the incumbent from office. Consequently, that an individual possesses the qualifications for a public office does not imply that he is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has the qualifications prescribed in 2 of the law does not imply that he does not suffer from any of disqualifications provided in 4. Indeed, provisions for disqualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre-proclamation remedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of "grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the election protest," 8 through the use of "manufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for the purpose of altering the results of the election. This rationale does not apply to cases for determining a candidate's qualifications for office before the election. To the contrary, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for

disqualification is brought who could be prejudiced because he could be prevented from assuming office even though in end he prevails. To summarize, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate may only be sought in an election protest or action for quo warranto filed pursuant to 253 of the Omnibus Election Code within 10 days after his proclamation. With respect to elective local officials (e.g., Governor, Vice Governor, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, etc.) such petition must be filed either with the COMELEC, the Regional Trial Courts, or Municipal Trial Courts, as provided in Art. IX, C, 2(2) of the Constitution. In the case of the President and Vice President, the petition must be filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Art. VII, 4, last paragraph), and in the case of the Senators, with the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case of Congressmen, with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. (Art. VI, 17) There is greater reason for not allowing before the election the filing of disqualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives, because of the same policy prohibiting the filing of pre-proclamation cases against such candidates. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over SPA No. 95009; that its proceedings in that case, including its questioned orders, are void; and that the eligibility of petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos for the office of Representative of the First District of Leyte may only be inquired into by the HRET. Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 95-009, including its questioned orders doted April 24, 1995, May 7, 1995, May 11, 1995 and May 25, 1995, declaring petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos ineligible and ordering her proclamation as Representative of the First District of Leyte suspended. To the extent that Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure authorizes proceedings for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office, it should considered void. The provincial board of canvassers should now proceed with the proclamation of petitioner. Narvasa, C.J., concurs. PADILLA, J., dissenting: I regret that I cannot join the majority opinion as expressed in the well-written ponencia of Mr. Justice Kapunan. As in any controversy arising out of a Constitutional provision, the inquiry must begin and end with the provision itself. The controversy should not be blurred by what, to me, are academic disquisitions. In this particular controversy, the Constitutional provision on point states that "no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five (25) years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which

he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election." (Article VI, section 6) It has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residence has been understood as synonymous with domicile. This argument has been validated by no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantly the factual circumstances clearly and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his personal presence in the place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. With this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of different modalities within which the phrase "a resident thereof (meaning, the legislative district) for a period of not less than one year" would fit. The first instance is where a person's residence and domicile coincide in which case a person only has to prove that he has been domiciled in a permanent location for not less than a year before the election. A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domicile in which case he would have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies the one-year residence period in the district as the minimum period for eligibility to the position of congressional representative for the district. In either case, one would not be constitutionally disqualified for abandoning his residence in order to return to his domicile of origin, or better still, domicile of choice; neither would one be disqualified for abandoning altogether his domicile in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate. The most extreme circumstance would be a situation wherein a person maintains several residences in different districts. Since his domicile of origin continues as an option as long as there is no effective abandonment (animus non revertendi), he can practically choose the district most advantageous for him. All these theoretical scenarios, however, are tempered by the unambiguous limitation that "for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election", he must be a resident in the district where he desires to be elected. To my mind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be synonymous with "domicile." In other words, the candidate's intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. And this, because of a definite Constitutional purpose. He must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the oneyear residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity, if not versatility.

In the case of petitioner Imelda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the now assailed decision of the Comelec 2nd Division dated 24 April 1995 (as affirmed by the Comelec en banc) In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1948 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University of Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese High School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late Speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-president Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte. She lived with him in Batac, Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965 when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. During the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila. She claimed that in February 1986, she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992 respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. On August 24, 1994, respondent filed a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, requesting for cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila, in order that she may be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. (Annex 2-B, Answer). On August 31, 1994, respondent filed her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration (Annex 2-C, Answer) stating that she is a duly registered voter in 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro that she intends to register at Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. On January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. She filed with the Board of Election Inspectors CE Form No. 1, Voter Registration Record No. 94-3349772, wherein she alleged that she has resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of 6 months (Annex A, Petition). On March 8, 1995, respondent filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Leyte, a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she also alleged that she has been a resident in the constituency where she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 months. The pertinent entries therein are as follows: 7. PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION: House-wife/ Teacher/ Social Worker 8. RESIDENCE (complete address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte Post Office Address for election purposes: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

9. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHEREIN I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION: ________ Years Seven Months 10. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY. THAT I AM ELIGIBLE for said office; That I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic 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; That the obligation imposed by my oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and That the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge. (Sgd.) Imelda Romualdez-Marcos (Signature of Candidate) 2 Petitioner's aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 8 March 1995 contains the decisive component or seed of her disqualification. It is contained in her answer under oath of "seven months" to the query of "residence in the constituency wherein I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." It follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner is disqualified from the position of representative for the 1st congressional district of Leyte in the elections of 8 May 1995, for failure to meet the "not less than one-year residence in the constituency (1st district, Leyte) immediately preceding the day of election (8 May 1995)." Having arrived at petitioner's disqualification to be a representative of the first district of Leyte, the next important issue to resolve is whether or not the Comelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates for representative in said district. I am not unaware of the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Labo vs. Comelec, G.R. 86564, August 1, 1989, 176 SCRA 1 which gave the rationale as laid down in the early 1912 case of Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 that: . . . . 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 non-eligible 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. Under Sec. 6 RA 6646, (An Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other purposes) (84 O.G. 905, 22 February 1988) it is provided that: . . . 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. There is no need to indulge in legal hermeneutics to sense the plain and unambiguous meaning of the provision quoted above. As the law now stands, the legislative policy does not limit its concern with the effect of a final judgement of disqualification only before the election, but even during or after the election. The law is clear that in all situations, the votes cast for a disqualified candidate SHALL NOT BE COUNTED. The law has also validated the jurisdiction of the Court or Commission on Election to continue hearing the petition for disqualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, if for any reason, he is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified. Since the present case is an after election scenario, the power to suspend proclamation (when evidence of his guilt is strong) is also explicit under the law. What happens then when after the elections are over, one is declared disqualified? Then, votes cast for him "shall not be counted" and in legal contemplation, he no longer received the highest number of votes. It stands to reason that Section 6 of RA 6646 does not make the second placer the winner simply because a "winning candidate is disqualified," but that the law considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest number of votes as a result of the votes cast for the disqualified candidate not being counted or considered. As this law clearly reflects the legislative policy on the matter, then there is no reason why this Court should not re-examine and consequently abandon the doctrine in the Jun Labo case. It has been stated that "the qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" most especially when it is mandated by no less than the Constitution. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to proclaim the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, from among the qualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the 1st district of Leyte. Hermosisima, Jr. J., dissent.

REGALADO, J., dissenting: While I agree with same of the factual bases of the majority opinion, I cannot arrive conjointly at the same conclusion drawn therefrom Hence, this dissent which assuredly is not formulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case." I go along with the majority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simplified as follows: 1. Petitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present Tacloban City, she being a legitimate daughter of parents who appear to have taken up permanent residence therein. She also went to school there and, for a time, taught in one of the schools in that city. 2. When she married then Rep. Ferdinand E. Marcos who was then domiciled in Batac, Ilocos Norte, by operation of law she acquired a new domicile in that place in 1954. 3. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected as a Senator and then as President, she lived with him and their family in San Juan, Rizal and then in Malacanang Palace in San Miguel, Manila. 4. Over those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in Batac, Ilocos Norte, then in San Juan, Rizal, and also in San Miguel, Manila, all these merely in the exercise of the right of suffrage. 5. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assumed those lofty positions successively, ever abandoned his domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte where he maintained his residence and invariably voted in all elections. 6. After the ouster of her husband from the presidency in 1986 and the sojourn of the Marcos family in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., she eventually returned to the Philippines in 1991 and resided in different places which she claimed to have been merely temporary residences. 7. In 1992, petitioner ran for election as President of the Philippines and in her certificate of candidacy she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. 8. On August 24, 1994, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila in order that she may "be reregistered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." On August 31, 1994, she followed this up with her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in Precinct No. 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. 9. On January 28, 1995, petitioner registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, for which purpose she filed with the therein Board of Election Inspectors a voter's registration record form alleging that she had resided in that municipality for six months.

10. On March 8, 1995, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the constituency where she sought to be elected. 11. On March 29, 1995, she filed an "Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy" wherein her answer in the original certificate of candidacy to item "8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK, TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:" was changed or replaced with a new entry reading "SINCE CHILDHOOD." The sole issue for resolution is whether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had complied with the residency requirement of one year as mandated by no less than Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. I do not intend to impose upon the time of my colleagues with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domicile. We have had enough of that and I understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter of international law, residence is understood to be synonymous with domicile. That is so understood in our jurisprudence and in American Law, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil, commercial and procedural laws whenever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling. Consequently, since in the present case the question of petitioner's residence is integrated in and inseparable from her domicile, I am addressing the issue from the standpoint of the concept of the latter term, specifically its permutations into the domicile of origin, domicile of choice and domicile by operation of law, as understood in American law from which for this case we have taken our jurisprudential bearings. My readings inform me that the domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. 1 In the instant case, we may grant that petitioner's domicile of origin, 2 at least as of 1938, was what is now Tacloban City. Now, as I have observed earlier, domicile is said to be of three kinds, that is, domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. The first is the common case of the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that which is voluntarily acquired by a party or domicilium propio motu; the last which is consequential, as that of a wife arising from marriage, 3 is sometimes called domicilium necesarium. There is no debate that the domicile of origin can be lost or replaced by a domicile of choice or a domicile by operation of law subsequently acquired by the party. When petitioner contracted marriage in 1954 with then Rep. Marcos, by operation of law, not only international or American but of our own enactment, 4 she acquired her husband's domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her own domicile of origin in Tacloban City. Her subsequent changes of residence to San Juan, Rizal, then to San Miguel, Manila, thereafter to Honolulu, Hawaii, and back to now San Juan, Metro Manila do not appear to

have resulted in her thereby acquiring new domiciles of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those places was by reason of the fortunes or misfortunes of her husband and his peregrinations in the assumption of new official positions or the loss of them. Her residence in Honolulu and, of course, those after her return to the Philippines were, as she claimed, against her will or only for transient purposes which could not have invested them with the status of domiciles of choice. 5 After petitioner's return to the Philippines in 1991 and up to the present imbroglio over her requisite residency in Tacloban City or Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, there is no showing that she ever attempted to acquire any other domicile of choice which could have resulted in the abandonment of her legal domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte. On that score, we note the majority's own submission 6 that, to successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate (a) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, (b) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and (c) acts which correspond with the purpose. We consequently have to also note that these requirements for the acquisition of a domicile of choice apply whether what is sought to be changed or substituted is a domicile of origin (domicilium originis) or a domicile by operation of law (domicilium necesarium). Since petitioner had lost her domicilium originis which had been replaced by her domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte which, if at all, can be the object of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar. To get out of this quandary, the majority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong in SPA 95-009 of the Commission on Elections, 7 and advances this novel proposition. It may be said that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952 (sic, 1954). By operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage became Batac, Ilocos Norte although there were no indications of an intention on her part to abandon her domicile of origin. Because of her husband's subsequent death and through the operation of the provisions of the New Family Code already in force at the time, however, her legal domicile automatically reverted to her domicile of origin. . . . (Emphasis supplied). Firstly, I am puzzled why although it is conceded that petitioner had acquired a domicilium necesarium in Batac, Ilocos Norte, the majority insists on making a qualification that she did not intend to abandon her domicile of origin. I find this bewildering since, in this situation, it is the law that declares where petitioner's domicile is at any given time, and not her self-serving or putative intent to hold on to her former domicile. Otherwise, contrary to their own admission that one cannot have more than one domicile at a time, 8 the majority would be suggesting that petitioner retained Tacloban City as (for lack of a term in law since it does not exist therein) the equivalent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potential, or residual domicile. Secondly, domicile once lost in accordance with law can only be recovered likewise in accordance with law. However, we are here being titillated with the possibility of an automatic reversion to or reacquisition of a domicile of origin after the termination of the cause for its loss

by operation of law. The majority agrees that since petitioner lost her domicile of origin by her marriage, the termination of the marriage also terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed by the ingeniousness of this theory which proves that, indeed, necessity is the mother of inventions. Regretfully, I find some difficulty in accepting either the logic or the validity of this argument. If a party loses his domicile of origin by obtaining a new domicile of choice, he thereby voluntarily abandons the former in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domicile, he does not per se recover his original domicile unless, by subsequent acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the same as his new domicile, which is precisely what petitioner belatedly and, evidently just for purposes of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do. One's subsequent abandonment of his domicile of choice cannot automatically restore his domicile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it would be absurd Pursued to its logical consequence, that theory of ipso jure reversion would rule out the fact that said party could already very well have obtained another domicile, either of choice or by operation of law, other than his domicile of origin. Significantly and obviously for this reason, the Family Code, which the majority inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it would impinge on one's freedom of choice. Now, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntarily abandoned her domicile of choice (unless we assume that she entered into the marital state against her will) but, on top of that, such abandonment was further affirmed through her acquisition of a new domicile by operation of law. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntary and legal abandonment of a domicile of origin. With much more reason, therefore, should we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in 1989, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso facto reacquired her domicile of origin which she lost in 1954. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to saying that during the period of marital coverture, she was simultaneously in possession and enjoyment of a domicile of origin which was only in a state of suspended animation. Thus, the American rule is likewise to the effect that while after the husband's death the wife has the right to elect her own domicile, 9 she nevertheless retains the last domicile of her deceased husband until she makes an actual change. 10 In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrary, the presumption is that a wife's domicile or legal residence follows that of her husband and will continue after his death. 11 I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in support of the majority's theory based on Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this new code, the right and power to fix the family domicile is now shared by the spouses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first place was never exercised by the spouses, could affect the domicile fixed by the law for petitioner in 1954 and, for her husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conjugal or family domicile, but that has no bearing on this case. With the death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten married and established their own respective domiciles, the exercise of that joint power was and is no longer called for or material in the present factual setting of this controversy.

Instead, what is of concern in petitioner's case was the matter of her having acquired or not her own domicile of choice. I agree with the majority's discourse on the virtues of the growing and expanded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with equal rights and recognition by Constitution and statutory conferment. However, I have searched in vain for a specific law or judicial pronouncement which either expressly or by necessary implication supports the majority's desired theory of automatic reacquisition of or reversion to the domicilium originis of petitioner. Definitely, as between the settled and desirable legal norms that should govern this issue, there is a world of difference; and, unquestionably, this should be resolved by legislative articulation but not by the eloquence of the well-turned phrase. In sum, petitioner having lost Tacloban City as her domicile of origin since 1954 and not having automatically reacquired any domicile therein, she cannot legally claim that her residency in the political constituency of which it is a part continued since her birth up to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amended/corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her admission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for only seven months prior to the election. These considerations render it unnecessary to further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner. ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, I vote to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority written by Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, more particularly on the issue of the petitioner's qualification. Under Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX of the Constitution, decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC may be brought to this Court only by the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251 [1979]; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 [1989]). Accordingly, a writ of certiorari may be granted only if the COMELEC has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court). Since the COMELEC has, undoubtedly, jurisdiction over the private respondent's petition, the only issue left is whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner. My careful and meticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 24 April 1995 of the COMELEC Second Division and the En Banc resolution of 7 May 1995 discloses total absence of abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse thereof. The resolution of the Second Division dispassionately and objectively discussed in minute details the facts which established beyond cavil that herein petitioner was disqualified as a candidate on the ground of lack of residence in the First Congressional District of Leyte. It has not misapplied, miscomprehended, or misunderstood facts or circumstances of substance pertinent to the issue of her residence.

The majority opinion, however, overturned the COMELEC's findings of fact for lack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned Tolosa as her domicile of origin, which is allegedly within the First Congressional District of Leyte. I respectfully submit that the petitioner herself has provided the COMELEC, either by admission or by documentary evidence, overwhelming proof of the loss or abandonment of her domicile of origin, which is Tacloban City and not Tolosa, Leyte. Assuming that she decided to live again in her domicile of origin, that became her second domicile of choice, where her stay, unfortunately, was for only seven months before the day of the election. She was then disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. A holding to the contrary would be arbitrary. It may indeed be conceded that the petitioner's domicile of choice was either Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte. Nevertheless, she lost it by operation of law sometime in May 1954 upon her marriage to the then Congressman (later, President) Ferdinand E. Marcos. A domicile by operation of law is that domicile which the law attributes to a person, independently of his own intention or actual residence, as results from legal domestic relations as that of the wife arising from marriage (28 C.J.S. Domicile 7, 11). Under the governing law then, Article 110 of the Civil Code, her new domicile or her domicile of choice was the domicile of her husband, which was Batac, Ilocos Norte. Said Article reads as follows: Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. Commenting thereon, civilist Arturo M. Tolentino states: Although the duty of the spouses to live together is mutual, the husband has a predominant right because he is empowered by law to fix the family residence. This right even predominates over some rights recognized by law in the wife. For instance, under article 117 the wife may engage in business or practice a profession or occupation. But because of the power of the husband to fix the family domicile he may fix it at such a place as would make it impossible for the wife to continue in business or in her profession. For justifiable reasons, however, the wife may be exempted from living in the residence chosen by the husband. The husband cannot validly allege desertion by the wife who refuses to follow him to a new place of residence, when it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable home belonging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, 1985 ed., 339). Under common law, a woman upon her marriage loses her own domicile and, by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends. Her domicile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the same as his, and subject to certain limitations, he can change her domicile by changing his own (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile 48, 37). It must, however, be pointed out that under Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of

the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term "family domicile," and not family residence, as "the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102). The theory of automatic restoration of a woman's domicile of origin upon the death of her husband, which the majority opinion adopts to overcome the legal effect of the petitioner's marriage on her domicile, is unsupported by law and by jurisprudence. The settled doctrine is that after the husband's death the wife has a right to elect her own domicile, but she retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change (28 C.J.S. Domicile 12, 27). Or, on the death of the husband, the power of the wife to acquire her own domicile is revived, but until she exercises the power her domicile remains that of the husband at the time of his death (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile 62, 45). Note that what is revived is not her domicile of origin but her power to acquire her own domicile. Clearly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner's domicile was that of her husband at the time of his death which was Batac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences in San Juan, Metro Manila, and San Miguel, Manila, were their residences for convenience to enable her husband to effectively perform his official duties. Their residence in San Juan was a conjugal home, and it was there to which she returned in 1991 when she was already a widow. In her sworn certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President in the synchronized elections of May 1992, she indicated therein that she was a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. She also voted in the said elections in that place. On the basis of her evidence, it was only on 24 August 1994 when she exercised her right as a widow to acquire her own domicile in Tolosa, Leyte, through her sworn statement requesting the Election Officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the permanent list of voters in Precinct 157 thereat and praying that she be "re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, the place of [her] birth and permanent residence" (photocopy of Exhibit "B," attached as Annex "2" of private respondent Montejo's Comment). Notably, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her place of birth when, in her Voter's Affidavit sworn to on 15 March 1992 (photocopy of Exhibit "C," attached as Annex "3," Id.), her Voter Registration Record sworn to on 28 January 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "E," attached as Annex "5," Id.), and her Certificate of Candidacy sworn to on 8 March 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "A," attached as Annex "1," Id.), she solemnly declared that she was born in Manila. The petitioner is even uncertain as to her domicile of origin. Is it Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte? In the affidavit attached to her Answer to the petition for disqualification (Annex "I" of Petition), she declared under oath that her "domicile or residence is Tacloban City." If she did intend to return to such domicile or residence of origin why did she inform the Election Officer of San Juan that she would transfer to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, and indicate in her Voter's Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is Olot, Tolosa, Leyte? While this uncertainty is not important insofar as residence in the congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty-one years had already lapsed since she had lost or

abandoned her domicile of origin by virtue of marriage and that such length of time diminished her power of recollection or blurred her memory. I find to be misplaced the reliance by the majority opinion on Faypon vs. Quirino (96 Phil. 294 [1954]), and the subsequent cases which established the principle that absence from original residence or domicile of origin to pursue studies, practice one's profession, or engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or domicile. So is the reliance on Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one's "occupation; profession; employment in private and public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law" is not deemed as loss of original residence. Those cases and legal provision do not include marriage of a woman. The reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article 110 of the Civil Code. If it were the intention of this Court or of the legislature to consider the marriage of a woman as a circumstance which would not operate as an abandonment of domicile (of origin or of choice), then such cases and legal provision should have expressly mentioned the same. This Court should not accept as gospel truth the self-serving claim of the petitioner in her affidavit (Annex "A" of her Answer in COMELEC SPA No. 95-009; Annex "I" of Petition) that her "domicile or residence of origin is Tacloban City," and that she "never intended to abandon this domicile or residence of origin to which [she] always intended to return whenever absent." Such a claim of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article 110 of the Civil Code. Besides, the facts and circumstances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner's life after her marriage in 1954 conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her domicile of origin and had acquired a new one animo et facto (KOSSUTH KENT KENNAN, A Treatise on Residence and Domicile, [1934], 214, 326). Neither should this Court place complete trust on the petitioner's claim that she "merely committed an honest mistake" in writing down the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement in the certificate of candidacy. Such a claim is self-serving and, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, would be all sound and fury signifying nothing. To me, she did not commit any mistake, honest or otherwise; what she stated was the truth. The majority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it (Imperial Victory Shipping Agency vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 [1991]; P.T. Cerna Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 19 [1993]). Having admitted marriage to the then Congressman Marcos, the petitioner could not deny the legal consequence thereof on the change of her domicile to that of her husband. The majority opinion rules or at least concludes that "[b]y operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage automatically became Batac, Ilocos Norte." That conclusion is consistent with Article 110 of the Civil Code. Since she is presumed to retain her deceased husband's domicile until she exercises her revived power to acquire her own domicile, the burden is upon her to prove that she has exercised her right to acquire her own domicile. She miserably failed to discharge that burden.

I vote to deny the petition. Separate Opinions PUNO, J., concurring: It was Aristotle who taught mankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, while things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness. 1 Like other candidates, petitioner has clearly met the residence requirement provided by Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution. 2 We cannot disqualify her and treat her unalike, for the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. I proceed from the following factual and legal propositions: First. There is no question that petitioner's original domicile is in Tacloban, Leyte. Her parents were domiciled in Tacloban. Their ancestral house is in Tacloban. They have vast real estate in the place. Petitioner went to school and thereafter worked there. I consider Tacloban as her initial domicile, both her domicile of origin and her domicile of choice. Her domicile of origin as it was the domicile of her parents when she was a minor; and her domicile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of majority. Second. There is also no question that in May, 1954, petitioner married the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. By contracting marriage, her domicile became subject to change by law, and the right to change it was given by Article 110 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. 3 (Emphasis supplied) In De la Via v. Villareal and Geopano, 4 this Court explained why the domicile of the wife ought to follow that of the husband. We held: "The reason is founded upon the theoretic identity of person and interest between the husband and the wife, and the presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is intended to promote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists, where union and harmony prevail." 5 In accord with this objective, Article 109 of the Civil Code also obligated the husband and wife "to live together." Third. The difficult issues start as we determine whether petitioner's marriage to former President Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her Tacloban domicile. I respectfully submit that her marriage by itself alone did not cause her to lose her Tacloban domicile. Article 110 of the Civil Code merely gave the husband the right to fix the domicile of the family. In the exercise of the right, the husband may explicitly choose the prior domicile of his wife, in which case, the wife's domicile remains unchanged. The husband can also implicitly acquiesce to his wife's prior domicile even if it is different. So we held in de la Via, 6

. . . . When married women as well as children subject to parental authority live, with the acquiescence of their husbands or fathers, in a place distinct from where the latter live, they have their own independent domicile. . . . It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage but the deliberate choice of a different domicile by the husband that will change the domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domiciliary decision made by the husband in the exercise of the right conferred by Article 110 of the Civil Code binds the wife. Any and all acts of a wife during her coverture contrary to the domiciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any way the domicile legally fixed by the husband. These acts are void not only because the wife lacks the capacity to choose her domicile but also because they are contrary to law and public policy. In the case at bench, it is not disputed that former President Marcos exercised his right to fix the family domicile and established it in Batac, Ilocos Norte, where he was then the congressman. At that particular point of time and throughout their married life, petitioner lost her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte. Since petitioner's Batac domicile has been fixed by operation of law, it was not affected in 1959 when her husband was elected as Senator, when they lived in San Juan, Rizal and where she registered as a voter. It was not also affected in 1965 when her husband was elected President, when they lived in Malacaang Palace, and when she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. Nor was it affected when she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila during the incumbency of her husband as President of the nation. Under Article 110 of the Civil Code, it was only her husband who could change the family domicile in Batac and the evidence shows he did not effect any such change. To a large degree, this follows the common law that "a woman on her marriage loses her own domicile and by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends." 7 Fourth. The more difficult task is how to interpret the effect of the death on September 28, 1989 of former President Marcos on petitioner's Batac domicile. The issue is of first impression in our jurisdiction and two (2) schools of thought contend for acceptance. One is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Davide, Jr., heavily relying on American authorities. 8 He echoes the theory that after the husband's death, the wife retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change. I do not subscribe to this submission. The American case law that the wife still retains her dead husband's domicile is based on ancient common law which we can no longer apply in the Philippine setting today. The common law identified the domicile of a wife as that of the husband and denied to her the power of acquiring a domicile of her own separate and apart from him. 9 Legal scholars agree that two (2) reasons support this common law doctrine. The first reason as pinpointed by the legendary Blackstone is derived from the view that "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." 10 The second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each member of the family unit governed by the same law." 11 The presumption that the wife retains the domicile of her deceased husband is an extension of this common law concept. The concept and its extension have provided some of the most iniquitous jurisprudence against women. It was under common law

that the 1873 American case of Bradwell v. Illinois 12 was decided where women were denied the right to practice law. It was unblushingly ruled that "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life . . . This is the law of the Creator." Indeed, the rulings relied upon by Mr. Justice Davide in CJS 13 and AM JUR 2d 14 are American state court decisions handed down between the years 1917 15 and 1938, 16 or before the time when women were accorded equality of rights with men. Undeniably, the women's liberation movement resulted in far-ranging state legislations in the United States to eliminate gender inequality. 17 Starting in the decade of the seventies, the courts likewise liberalized their rulings as they started invalidating laws infected with gender-bias. It was in 1971 when the US Supreme Court in Reed v. Reed, 18 struck a big blow for women equality when it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho law that required probate courts to choose male family members over females as estate administrators. It held that mere administrative inconvenience cannot justify a sex-based distinction. These significant changes both in law and in case law on the status of women virtually obliterated the iniquitous common law surrendering the rights of married women to their husbands based on the dubious theory of the parties' theoretic oneness. The Corpus Juris Secundum editors did not miss the relevance of this revolution on women's right as they observed: "However, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of married women and departing from the common law theory of marriage, there is no reason why a wife may not acquire a separate domicile for every purpose known to the law." 19 In publishing in 1969 the Restatement of the Law, Second (Conflict of Laws 2d), the reputable American Law Institute also categorically stated that the view of Blackstone ". . . is no longer held. As the result of statutes and court decisions, a wife now possesses practically the same rights and powers as her unmarried sister." 20 In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we should continue clinging to the anachronistic common law that demeans women, especially married women. I submit that the Court has no choice except to break away from this common law rule, the root of the many degradations of Filipino women. Before 1988, our laws particularly the Civil Code, were full of gender discriminations against women. Our esteemed colleague, Madam Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, cited a few of them as follows: 21 xxx xxx xxx Legal Disabilities Suffered by Wives Not generally known is the fact that under the Civil Code, wives suffer under certain restrictions or disabilities. For instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the value of the gift, other than from her very close relatives, without her husband's consent. She may accept only from, say, her parents, parents-in-law, brothers, sisters and the relatives within the so-called fourth civil degree. She may not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband objects on serious grounds or if his income is sufficient to support their family in accordance with their social standing. As to what constitutes "serious grounds" for objecting, this is within the discretion of the husband. xxx xxx xxx

Because of the present inequitable situation, the amendments to the Civil Law being proposed by the University of the Philippines Law Center would allow absolute divorce which severes the matrimonial ties, such that the divorced spouses are free to get married a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts. However, in order to place the husband and wife on an equal footing insofar as the bases for divorce are concerned, the following are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce: (1) adultery or having a paramour committed by the respondent in any of the ways specified in the Revised Penal Code or (2) an attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner which amounts to attempted parricide under the Revised Penal Code; (3) abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without just cause for a period of three consecutive years; or (4) habitual maltreatment. With respect to property relations, the husband is automatically the administrator of the conjugal property owned in common by the married couple even if the wife may be the more astute or enterprising partner. The law does not leave it to the spouses to decide who shall act as such administrator. Consequently, the husband is authorized to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the conjugal partnership. The wife, however, cannot similarly bind the partnership without the husband's consent. And while both exercise joint parental authority over their children, it is the father whom the law designates as the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the unemancipated child. Taking the lead in Asia, our government exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to eliminate inequality between men and women in our land. The watershed came on August 3, 1988 when our Family Code took effect which, among others, terminated the unequal treatment of husband and wife as to their rights and responsibilities. 22 The Family Code attained this elusive objective by giving new rights to married women and by abolishing sex-based privileges of husbands. Among others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the family property, whether in the absolute community system or in the system of conjugal partnership; 23 joint parental authority over their minor children, both over their persons as well as their properties; 24 joint responsibility for the support of the family; 25 the right to jointly manage the household; 26 and, the right to object to their husband's exercise of profession, occupation, business or activity. 27 Of particular relevance to the case at bench is Article 69 of the Family Code which took away the exclusive right of the husband to fix the family domicile and gave it jointly to the husband and the wife, thus: Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (Emphasis supplied) Article 69 repealed Article 110 of the Civil Code. Commenting on the duty of the husband and wife to live together, former Madam Justice Alice Sempio-Diy of the Court of Appeals specified the instances when a wife may now refuse to live with her husband, thus: 28

(2) The wife has the duty to live with her husband, but she may refuse to do so in certain cases like: (a) If the place chosen by the husband as family residence is dangerous to her Life; (b) If the husband subjects her to maltreatment or abusive conduct or insults, making common life impossible; (c) If the husband compels her to live with his parents, but she cannot get along with her motherin-law and they have constant quarrels (Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, CA, 46 OG 6122); (d) Where the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for 10 years with different women and treated his wife roughly and without consideration. (Dadivas v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 92); (e) Where the husband spent his time in gambling, giving no money to his family for food and necessities, and at the same time insulting his wife and laying hands on her. (Panuncio v. Sula, CA, 34 OG 129); (f) If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tramp (1 Manresa 329); (g) If the husband is carrying on a shameful business at home (Gahn v. Darby, 38 La. Ann. 70). The inescapable conclusion is that our Family Code has completely emancipated the wife from the control of the husband, thus abandoning the parties' theoretic identity of interest. No less than the late revered Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes who chaired the Civil Code Revision Committee of the UP Law Center gave this insightful view in one of his rare lectures after retirement: 29 xxx xxx xxx The Family Code is primarily intended to reform the family law so as to emancipate the wife from the exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity with him insofar as the family is concerned. The wife and the husband are now placed on equal standing by the Code. They are now joint administrators of the family properties and exercise joint authority over the persons and properties of their children. This means a dual authority in the family. The husband will no longer prevail over the wife but she has to agree on all matters concerning the family. (Emphasis supplied) In light of the Family Code which abrogated the inequality between husband and wife as started and perpetuated by the common law, there is no reason in espousing the anomalous rule that the wife still retains the domicile of her dead husband. Article 110 of the Civil Code which provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by Article 69 of the Family Code. By its repeal, it becomes a dead-letter law, and we are not free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any way or manner such as by ruling that the petitioner is still bound by the domiciliary determination of her dead husband.

Aside from reckoning with the Family Code, we have to consider our Constitution and its firm guarantees of due process and equal protection of law. 30 It can hardly be doubted that the common law imposition on a married woman of her dead husband's domicile even beyond his grave is patently discriminatory to women. It is a gender-based discrimination and is not rationally related to the objective of promoting family solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, compared with our previous fundamental laws, the 1987 Constitution is more concerned with equality between sexes as it explicitly commands that the State ". . . shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men." To be exact, section 14, Article II provides: "The State recognizes the role of women in nation building, and shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men. We shall be transgressing the sense and essence of this constitutional mandate if we insist on giving our women the caveman's treatment. Prescinding from these premises, I respectfully submit that the better stance is to rule that petitioner reacquired her Tacloban domicile upon the death of her husband in 1989. This is the necessary consequence of the view that petitioner's Batac dictated domicile did not continue after her husband's death; otherwise, she would have no domicile and that will violate the universal rule that no person can be without a domicile at any point of time. This stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her domicile before it was taken away by Article 110 of the Civil Code, a right now recognized by the Family Code and protected by the Constitution. Likewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common law requiring petitioner to choose again her Tacloban domicile before she could be released from her Batac domicile. She lost her Tacloban domicile not through her act but through the act of her deceased husband when he fixed their domicile in Batac. Her husband is dead and he cannot rule her beyond the grave. The law disabling her to choose her own domicile has been repealed. Considering all these, common law should not put the burden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead husband's domicile. There is neither rhyme nor reason for this gender-based burden. But even assuming arguendo that there is need for convincing proof that petitioner chose to reacquire her Tacloban domicile, still, the records reveal ample evidence to this effect. In her affidavit submitted to the respondent COMELEC, petitioner averred: xxx xxx xxx 36. In November, 1991, I came home to our beloved country, after several requests for my return were denied by President Corazon C. Aquino, and after I filed suits for our Government to issue me my passport. 37. But I came home without the mortal remains of my beloved husband, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which the Government considered a threat to the national security and welfare. 38. Upon my return to the country, I wanted to immediately live and reside in Tacloban City or in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, even if my residences there were not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibalized. The PCGG, however, did not permit and allow me.

39. As a consequence, I had to live at various times in the Westin Philippine Plaza in Pasay City, a friend's apartment on Ayala Avenue, a house in South Forbes Park which my daughter rented, and Pacific Plaza, all in Makati. 40. After the 1992 Presidential Elections, I lived and resided in the residence of my brother in San Jose, Tacloban City, and pursued my negotiations with PCGG to recover my sequestered residences in Tacloban City and Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. 40.1 In preparation for my observance of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day that year, I renovated my parents' burial grounds and entombed their bones which had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered. 41. On November 29, 1993, I formally wrote PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for permissions to . . . rehabilitate . . . (o)ur ancestral house in Tacloban and farmhouse in Olot, Leyte . . . to make them livable for us the Marcos family to have a home in our own motherland. xxx xxx xxx 42. It was only on 06 June 1994, however, when PCGG Chairman Gunigundo, in his letter to Col. Simeon Kempis, Jr., PCGG Region 8 Representative, allowed me to repair and renovate my Leyte residences. I quote part of his letter: Dear Col. Kempis, Upon representation by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos to this Commission, that she intends to visit our sequestered properties in Leyte, please allow her access thereto. She may also cause repairs and renovation of the sequestered properties, in which event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not authorization for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not reimbursable. Please extend the necessary courtesy to her. xxx xxx xxx 43. I was not permitted, however, to live and stay in the Sto. Nio Shrine residence in Tacloban City where I wanted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations were completed. In August 1994, I transferred from San Jose, Tacloban City, to my residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, when PCGG permitted me to stay and live there. It is then clear that in 1992 petitioner reestablished her domicile in the First District of Leyte. It is not disputed that in 1992, she first lived at the house of her brother in San Jose, Tacloban City and later, in August 1994, she transferred her residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. Both Tacloban City and the municipality of Olot are within the First District of Leyte. Since petitioner reestablished her old domicile in 1992 in the First District of Leyte, she more than complied with the constitutional requirement of residence

". . . for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election," i.e., the May 8, 1995 elections. The evidence presented by the private respondent to negate the Tacloban domicile of petitioner is nil. He presented petitioner's Voter's Registration Record filed with the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 10-A of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte wherein she stated that her period of residence in said barangay was six (6) months as of the date of her filing of said Voter's Registration Record on January 28, 1995. 31 This statement in petitioner's Voter's Registration Record is a non-prejudicial admission. The Constitution requires at least one (1) year residence in the district in which the candidate shall be elected. In the case at bench, the reference is the First District of Leyte. Petitioner's statement proved that she resided in Olot six (6) months before January 28, 1995 but did not disprove that she has also resided in Tacloban City starting 1992. As aforestated, Olot and Tacloban City are both within the First District of Leyte, hence, her six (6) months residence in Olot should be counted not against, but in her favor. Private respondent also presented petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 32 where she placed seven (7) months after Item No. 8 which called for information regarding "residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Again, this original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary value because an March 1, 1995 it was corrected by petitioner. In her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, 33 petitioner wrote "since childhood" after Item No. 8. The amendment of a certificate of candidacy to correct a bona fide mistake has been allowed by this Court as a matter of course and as a matter of right. As we held in Alialy v. COMELEC, 34 viz.: xxx xxx xxx The absence of the signature of the Secretary of the local chapter N.P in the original certificate of candidacy presented before the deadline September 11, 1959, did not render the certificate invalid. The amendment of the certificate, although at a date after the deadline, but before the election, was substantial compliance with the law, and the defect was cured. It goes without saying that petitioner's erroneous Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 cannot be used as evidence against her. Private respondent's petition for the disqualification of petitioner rested alone on these two (2) brittle pieces of documentary evidence petitioner's Voter's Registration Record and her original Certificate of Candidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her ceaseless contacts with Tacloban, private respondent's two (2) pieces of evidence are too insufficient to disqualify petitioner, more so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the First District of Leyte who have overwhelmingly voted for her. Fifth. Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that "bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." 35 A detached reading of the records of the case at bench will show that all forms of legal and extra-legal obstacles have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people's representative in the First District of Leyte. In petitioner's Answer to the petition to disqualify her, she averred: 36

xxx xxx xxx 10. Petitioner's (herein private respondent Montejo) motive in filing the instant petition is devious. When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, petitioner (Montejo) immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." (Annex "2" of respondent's affidavit, Annex "2"). After respondent (petitioner herein) had registered as a voter in Tolosa following completion of her six-month actual residence therein, petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such move up to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 118702, his purpose being to remove respondent (petitioner herein) as petitioner's (Montejo's) opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking to create another legislative district, to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having, failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition, for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit himself along with respondent (petitioner herein) for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995. These allegations which private respondent did not challenge were not lost to the perceptive eye of Commissioner Maambong who in his Dissenting Opinion, 37 held: xxx xxx xxx Prior to the registration date January 28, 1995 the petitioner (herein private respondent Montejo) wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban City not to allow respondent (petitioner herein) to register thereat since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban City. The purpose of this move of the petitioner (Montejo) is not lost to (sic) the Commission. In UND No. 95-001 (In the matter of the Legislative Districts of the Provinces of Leyte, Iloilo, and South Cotabato, Out of Which the New Provinces of Biliran, Guimaras and Saranggani Were Respectively Created), . . . Hon. Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, Representative, First District of Leyte, wanted the Municipality of Tolosa, in the First District of Leyte, transferred to the Second District of Leyte. The Hon. Sergio A.F. Apostol, Representative of the Second District of Leyte, opposed the move of the petitioner (Montejo). Under Comelec Resolution No. 2736 (December 29, 1994), the Commission on Elections refused to make the proposed transfer. Petitioner (Montejo) filed "Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 2736" which the Commission denied in a Resolution promulgated on February 1, 1995. Petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition for certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court (Cirilo Roy G. Montejo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 118702) questioning the resolution of the Commission. Believing that he could get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, petitioner (Montejo) tried to make sure that the respondent (petitioner herein) will register as a voter in Tolosa so that she will be forced to run as Representative not in the First but in the Second District.

It did not happen. On March 16, 1995, the Honorable Supreme Court unanimously promulgated a "Decision," penned by Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW WHEREOF, Section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 insofar as it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of the province of Leyte, is annulled and set aside. We also deny the Petition praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte. No costs. Petitioner's (Montejo's) plan did not work. But the respondent (petitioner herein) was constrained to register in the Municipality of Tolosa where her house is instead of Tacloban City, her domicile. In any case, both Tacloban City and Tolosa are in the First Legislative District. All these attempts to misuse our laws and legal processes are forms of rank harassments and invidious discriminations against petitioner to deny her equal access to a public office. We cannot commit any hermeneutic violence to the Constitution by torturing the meaning of equality, the end result of which will allow the harassment and discrimination of petitioner who has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shadow. There is but one Constitution for all Filipinos. Petitioner cannot be adjudged by a "different" Constitution, and the worst way to interpret the Constitution is to inject in its interpretation, bile and bitterness. Sixth. In Gallego v. Vera, 38 we explained that the reason for this residence requirement is "to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted, with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community . . . ." Petitioner's lifetime contacts with the First District of Leyte cannot be contested. Nobody can claim that she is not acquainted with its problems because she is a stranger to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the Constitution. Seventh. In resolving election cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effectuate the will of the electorate. The election results show that petitioner received Seventy Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-one (70,471) votes, while private respondent got only Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three (36,833) votes. Petitioner is clearly the overwhelming choice of the electorate of the First District of Leyte and this is not a sleight of statistics. We cannot frustrate this sovereign will on highly arguable technical considerations. In case of doubt, we should lean towards a rule that will give life to the people's political judgment. A final point. The case at bench provides the Court with the rare opportunity to rectify the inequality of status between women and men by rejecting the iniquitous common law precedents on the domicile of married women and by redefining domicile in accord with our own culture, law, and Constitution. To rule that a married woman is eternally tethered to the domicile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and anomalous balance of advantage of a husband over his wife. We should not allow the dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the dead! The Family Code buried this gender-based discrimination against married women and we should not excavate what has been entombed. More importantly, the Constitution forbids it.

I vote to grant the petition. Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur. FRANCISCO, J., concurring: I concur with Mr. Justice Kapunan's ponencia finding petitioner qualified for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. I wish, however, to express a few comments on the issue of petitioner's domicile. Domicile has been defined as that place in which a person's habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom, and that place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home (28 C.J.S. 1). It denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business, or pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966, 969) Domicile is classified into domicile of origin and domicile of choice. The law attributes to every individual a domicile of origin, which is the domicile of his parents, or of the head of his family, or of the person on whom he is legally dependent at the time of his birth. While the domicile of origin is generally the place where one is born or reared, it maybe elsewhere (28 C.J.S. 5). Domicile of choice, on the other hand, is the place which the person has elected and chosen for himself to displace his previous domicile; it has for its true basis or foundation the intention of the person (28 C.J.S. 6). In order to hold that a person has abandoned his domicile and acquired a new one called domicile of choice, the following requisites must concur, namely, (a) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (b) intention to remain there or animus manendi, and (c) an intention to abandon the old domicile or animus non revertendi (Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 226 SCRA 408, 415). A third classification is domicile by operation of law which attributes to a person a domicile independent of his own intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting from legal domestic relations, as that of the wife arising from marriage, or the relation of a parent and a child (28 C.J.S. 7). In election law, when our Constitution speaks of residence for election purposes it means domicile (Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, 713; Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645, 651). To my mind, public respondent Commission on Elections misapplied this concept, of domicile which led to petitioner's disqualification by ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the constitutionally mandated one-year residence requirement. Apparently, public respondent Commission deemed as conclusive petitioner's stay and registration as voter in many places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon her established domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. In several decisions, though, the Court has laid down the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of origin is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence (Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294, 300). Respondent Commission offered no cogent reason to depart from this rule except to surmise petitioner's intent of abandoning her domicile of origin.

It has been suggested that petitioner's domicile of origin was supplanted by a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile by operation of law. The proposition is that upon the death of her husband in 1989 she retains her husband's domicile, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, until she makes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition quite untenable. Tacloban, Leyte, is petitioner's domicile of origin which was involuntarily supplanted with another, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, upon her marriage in 1954 with then Congressman Marcos. By legal fiction she followed the domicile of her husband. In my view, the reason for the law is for the spouses to fully and effectively perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The question of domicile, however, is not affected by the fact that it was the legal or moral duty of the individual to reside in a given place (28 C.J.S. 11). Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as the marriage subsists, she automatically loses it upon the latter's termination, for the reason behind the law then ceases. Otherwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended by the death of her husband, would be placed in a quite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifely obligations yet made to hold on to one which no longer serves any meaningful purpose. It is my view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile of Tacloban, Leyte upon her husband's death without even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively abandoned Tacloban, Leyte for Batac, Ilocos Norte or for some other place/s. The clear rule is that it is the party (herein private respondent) claiming that a person has abandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and prove preponderantly such abandonment or loss (Faypon v. Quirino, supra at 298; 28 C.J.S. 16), because the presumption is strongly in favor of an original or former domicile, as against an acquired one (28 C.J.S. 16). Private respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has acquired whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin. The records, on the contrary, clearly show that petitioner has complied with the constitutional one-year residence requirement. After her exile abroad, she returned to the Philippines in 1991 to reside in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, but the Presidential Commission on Good Government which sequestered her residential house and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila (Affidavit p.6, attached as Annex I of the Petition). In 1992, she ran for the position of president writing in her certificate of candidacy her residence as San Juan, Metro Manila. After her loss therein, she went back to Tacloban City, acquired her residence certificate 2 and resided with her brother in San Jose. She resided in San Jose, Tacloban City until August of 1994 when she was allowed by the PCGG to move and reside in her sequestered residential house in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 6). 3 It was in the same month of August when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila in order to register anew as voter of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, which she did on January 28, 1995. From this sequence of events, I find it quite improper to use as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the 1992 presidential election from San Juan, Metro Manila to San Jose, Tacloban City, and resided therein until August of 1994. She later transferred to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 7). It appearing that both Tacloban City and

Tolosa, Leyte are within the First Congressional District of Leyte, it indubitably stands that she had more than a year of residence in the constituency she sought to be elected. Petitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily complied with the one-year qualification required by the 1987 Constitution. I vote to grant the petition. ROMERO, J., separate opinion: Petitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the COMELEC ruled that she was disqualified from running for Representative of her District and that, in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a majority vote, her proclamation should be suspended. Not by a straightforward ruling did the COMELEC pronounce its decision as has been its unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse somersaults." Indicative of its shifting stance vis-a-vis petitioner's certificate of candidacy were first, the action of its Second Division disqualifying her and canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy by a vote of 2-1 on April 24, 1995; then the denial by the COMELEC en banc of her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, 1995, a day before the election; then because she persisted in running, its decision on May 11, 1995 or three days after the election, allowing her proclamation in the event that the results of the canvass should show that she obtained the highest number of votes (obviously noting that petitioner had won overwhelmingly over her opponent), but almost simultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she wins, her proclamation should nonetheless be suspended. Crucial to the resolution of the disqualification issue presented by the case at bench is the interpretation to be given to the one-year residency requirement imposed by the Constitution on aspirants for a Congressional seat. 1 Bearing in mind that the term "resident" has been held to be synonymous with "domicile" for election purposes, it is important to determine whether petitioner's domicile was in the First District of Leyte and if so, whether she had resided there for at least a period of one year. Undisputed is her domicile of origin, Tacloban, where her parents lived at the time of her birth. Depending on what theory one adopts, the same may have been changed when she married Ferdinand E. Marcos, then domiciled in Batac, by operation of law. Assuming it did, his death certainly released her from the obligation to live with him at the residence fixed by him during his lifetime. What may confuse the layman at this point is the fact that the term "domicile" may refer to "domicile of origin," "domicile of choice," or "domicile by operation of law," which subject we shall not belabor since it has been amply discussed by the ponente and in the other separate opinions. In any case, what assumes relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of the husband's death on the domicile of the widow. Some scholars opine that the widow's domicile remains unchanged; that the deceased husband's wishes perforce still bind the wife he has left behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot possibly go far enough to sever the domiciliary tie imposed by her husband.

It is bad enough to interpret the law as empowering the husband unilaterally to fix the residence or domicile of the family, as laid down in the Civil Code, 2 but to continue giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationale underlying the mutual duty of the spouses to live together has ceased, is to close one's eyes to the stark realities of the present. At the other extreme is the position that the widow automatically reverts to her domicile of origin upon the demise of her husband. Does the law so abhor a vacuum that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domicile? To answer this question which is far from rhetorical, one will have to keep in mind the basic principles of domicile. Everyone must have a domicile. Then one must have only a single domicile for the same purpose at any given time. Once established, a domicile remains until a new one is acquired, for no person lives who has no domicile, as defined by the law be is subject to. At this juncture, we are confronted with an unexplored legal terrain in this jurisdiction, rendered more murky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opportune to illumine the darkness with the beacon light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right to choose her domicile in keeping with the enlightened global trend to recognize and protect the human rights of women, no less than men. Admittedly, the notion of placing women at par with men, insofar as civil, political and social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent phenomenon that took seed only in the middle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the Philippines had been colonized by Spain, a conservative, Catholic country which transplanted to our shores the Old World cultures, mores and attitudes and values. Through the imposition on our government of the Spanish Civil Code in 1889, the people, both men and women, had no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband's being the head of the family and the wife's subordination to his authority. In such role, his was the right to make vital decisions for the family. Many instances come to mind, foremost being what is related to the issue before us, namely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the family." 3 Because he is made responsible for the support of the wife and the rest of the family, 4 he is also empowered to be the administrator of the conjugal property, with a few exceptions 5 and may, therefore, dispose of the conjugal partnership property for the purposes specified under the law; 6 whereas, as a general rule, the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent. 7 As regards the property pertaining to the children under parental authority, the father is the legal administrator and only in his absence may the mother assume his powers. 8 Demeaning to the wife's dignity are certain strictures on her personal freedoms, practically relegating her to the position of minors and disabled persons. To illustrate a few: The wife cannot, without the husband's consent, acquire any gratuitous title, except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the fourth degree. 9 With respect to her employment, the husband wields a veto power in the case the wife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in business, provided his income is sufficient for the family, according to its social standing and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds. 10 Most offensive, if not repulsive, to the liberal-minded is the effective prohibition upon a widow to get married till after three hundred days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime, she has given birth to a child. 11 The mother who contracts a subsequent marriage loses the parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband,

father of the latter, has expressly provided in his will that his widow might marry again, and has ordered that in such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children. 12 Again, an instance of a husband's overarching influence from beyond the grave. All these indignities and disabilities suffered by Filipino wives for hundreds of years evoked no protest from them until the concept of human rights and equality between and among nations and individuals found hospitable lodgment in the United Nations Charter of which the Philippines was one of the original signatories. By then, the Spanish "conquistadores" had been overthrown by the American forces at the turn of the century. The bedrock of the U.N. Charter was firmly anchored on this credo: "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." (Emphasis supplied) It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, owing largely to the burgeoning of the feminist movement. What may be regarded as the international bill of rights for women was implanted in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly which entered into force as an international treaty on September 3, 1981. In ratifying the instrument, the Philippines bound itself to implement its liberating spirit and letter, for its Constitution, no less, declared that "The Philippines. . . adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." 13 One such principle embodied in the CEDAW is granting to men and women "the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile." 14 (Emphasis supplied). CEDAW's pro-women orientation which was not lost on Filipino women was reflected in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and later, in the Family Code, 15 both of which were speedily approved by the first lady President of the country, Corazon C. Aquino. Notable for its emphasis on the human rights of all individuals and its bias for equality between the sexes are the following provisions: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights" 16 and "The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men." 17 A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; 18 concomitant to the spouses' being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; 19 the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; 20 the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child 21 and several others. Aware of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the law, insofar as women's rights are concerned, Congress passed a law popularly known as "Women in Development and Nation Building Act" 22 Among the rights given to married women evidencing their capacity to act in contracts equal to that of men are:

(1) Women shall have the capacity to borrow and obtain loans and execute security and credit arrangements under the same conditions as men; (2) Women shall have equal access to all government and private sector programs granting agricultural credit, loans and non material resources and shall enjoy equal treatment in agrarian reform and land resettlement programs; (3) Women shall have equal rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts; and (4) Married women shall have rights equal to those of married men in applying for passports, secure visas and other travel documents, without need to secure the consent of their spouses. As the world draws the curtain on the Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, let this Court now be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Women's Rights are Human Rights" and that "All obstacles to women's full participation in decision-making at all levels, including the family" should be removed. Having been herself a Member of the Philippine Delegation to the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico in 1975, this writer is only too keenly aware of the unremitting struggle being waged by women the world over, Filipino women not excluded, to be accepted as equals of men and to tear down the walls of discrimination that hold them back from their proper places under the sun. In light of the inexorable sweep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and judicial, according more rights to women hitherto denied them and eliminating whatever pockets of discrimination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be insisted that widows are not at liberty to choose their domicile upon the death of their husbands but must retain the same, regardless? I submit that a widow, like the petitioner and others similarly situated, can no longer be bound by the domicile of the departed husband, if at all she was before. Neither does she automatically revert to her domicile of origin, but exercising free will, she may opt to reestablish her domicile of origin. In returning to Tacloban and subsequently, to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, both of which are located in the First District of Leyte, petitioner amply demonstrated by overt acts, her election of a domicile of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domicile of origin. Added together, the time when she set up her domicile in the two places sufficed to meet the one-year requirement to run as Representative of the First District of Leyte. In view of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to GRANT the petition. VITUG, J., separate opinion: The case at bench deals with explicit Constitutional mandates. The Constitution is not a pliable instrument. It is a bedrock in our legal system that sets up ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to ensure that mistakes in the past are not repeated. A compliant transience of a constitution belittles its basic function and weakens its goals. A constitution may well become outdated by the realities of time.

When it does, it must be changed but while it remains, we owe it respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor must it ever be, the answer to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the Constitution might lose its very essence. Constitutional provisions must be taken to be mandatory in character unless, either by express statement or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest (see Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51). The two provisions initially brought to focus are Section 6 and Section 17 of Article VI of the fundamental law. These provisions read: Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. The Commission on Election (the "COMELEC") is constitutionally bound to enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." (Art. IX, C, Sec. 2, Constitution) that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to pass upon the qualification and disqualification prescribed by law of candidates to an elective office. Indeed, pre-proclamation controversies are expressly placed under the COMELEC's jurisdiction to hear and resolve (Art. IX, C, Sec. 3, Constitution). The matter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one-year residency requirement. The issue (whether or not there is here such compliance), to my mind, is basically a question of fact or at least inextricably linked to such determination. The findings and judgment of the COMELEC, in accordance with the long established rule and subject only to a number of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of discretion," are not reviewable by this Court. I do not find much need to do a complex exercise on what seems to me to be a plain matter. Generally, the term "residence" has a broader connotation that may mean permanent (domicile), official (place where one's official duties may require him to stay) or temporary (the place where he sojourns during a considerable length of time). For civil law purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence (see Article 50, Civil Code). In election cases, the controlling

rule is that heretofore announced by this Court in Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City (226 SCRA 408, 409); thus: In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous with "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the COMELEC with having committed grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution. The COMELEC's jurisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee must have theretofore been duly proclaimed and has since become a "member" of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The question can be asked on whether or not the proclamation of a candidate is just a ministerial function of the Commission on Elections dictated solely on the number of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A ministerial duty is an obligation the performance of which, being adequately defined, does not allow the use of further judgment or discretion. The COMELEC, in its particular case, is tasked with the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as may be required by law before a proclamation is properly done. The Court, on its part, should, in my view at least, refrain from any undue encroachment on the ultimate exercise of authority by the Electoral Tribunals on matters which, by no less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly within their exclusive domain. The nagging question, if it were otherwise, would be the effect of the Court's peremptory pronouncement on the ability of the Electoral Tribunal to later come up with its own judgment in a contest "relating to the election, returns and qualification" of its members. Prescinding from all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to this case of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, in relation to Section 72 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, each providing thusly: REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6646 xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. 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. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881 xxx xxx xxx Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought. 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. Nevertheless, 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, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office. I realize that in considering the significance of the law, it may be preferable to look for not so much the specific instances they ostensibly would cover as the principle they clearly convey. Thus, I will not scoff at the argument that it should be sound to say that votes cast in favor of the disqualified candidate, whenever ultimately declared as such, should not be counted in his or her favor and must accordingly be considered to be stray votes. The argument, nevertheless, is far outweighed by the rationale of the now prevailing doctrine first enunciated in the case of Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238 [1912]) which, although later abandoned in Ticzon vs. Comelec (103 SCRA 687 [1981]), and Santos vs. COMELEC (137 SCRA 740 [1985]), was restored, along with the interim case of Geronimo vs. Ramos (136 SCRA 435 [1985]), by the Labo (176 SCRA 1 (1989]), Abella (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), Labo (211 SCRA 297 [1992]) and, most recently, Benito (235 SCRA 436 [1994]) rulings. Benito vs. Comelec was a unanimous decision penned by Justice Kapunan and concurred in by Chief Justice Narvasa, Justices Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Mendoza (Justices Cruz and Bellosillo were on official leave). For easy reference, let me quote from the first Labo decision: 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, (137 SCRA 740) 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 noncandidate, were all disregard as stray. In effect, the second placer won by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then, (Cuevas, J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay and Aquino, JJ., concurring.) with three dissenting (Teehankee, Acting C.J., Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.) and another two reserving their vote. (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.) One was on official leave. (Fernando, C.J.) Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier case of Geronimo v. Ramos, (136 SCRA 435) which represents the more logical and democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 in Topacio v. Paredes, (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court, (Gutierrez, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concurring) without any dissent, although one reserved his vote, (Makasiar, J.) another took no part, (Aquino, J.) and two others were on leave. (Fernando, C.J. and Concepcion, Jr., J.) 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 non-eligible 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. (at pp. 20-21) Considering all the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissal of the petition. MENDOZA, J., separate opinion: In my view the issue in this case is whether the Commission on Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to which they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the qualifications of candidates may be questioned

only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo warranto or an election protest in the appropriate forum, not necessarily in the COMELEC but, as in this case, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the COMELEC is of no moment. Such proceedings were unauthorized and were not rendered valid by their agreement to submit their dispute to that body. The various election laws will be searched in vain for authorized proceedings for determining a candidate's qualifications for an office before his election. There are none in the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), in the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646), or in the law providing for synchronized elections (R.A. No. 7166). There are, in other words, no provisions for pre-proclamation contests but only election protests or quo warranto proceedings against winning candidates. To be sure, there are provisions denominated for "disqualification," but they are not concerned with a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacity (due to insanity, incompetence or conviction of an offense) of a person either to be a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. There is also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only to cases involving false representations as to certain matters required by law to be stated in the certificates. These provisions are found in the following parts of the Omnibus Election Code: 12. Disqualifications. Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis added) 68. Disqualifications. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Emphasis added)

 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 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 twenty-five 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. (Emphasis added) the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646): 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. 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 for 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 added). 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. and the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160): 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; (b) Those removed from office as a result of on administrative case; (c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic; (d) Those with dual citizenship; (e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad; (f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and (g) The insane or feeble-minded. The petition filed by private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo in the COMELEC, while entitled "For Cancellation and Disqualification," contained no allegation that private respondent Imelda

Romualdez-Marcos made material representations in her certificate of candidacy which were false, it sought her disqualification on the ground that "on the basis of her Voter Registration Record and Certificate of Candidacy, [she] is disqualified from running for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 8, 1995, [she] would have resided less than ten (10) months in the district where she is seeking to be elected." For its part, the COMELEC's Second Division, in its resolution of April 24, 1995, cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of its finding that petitioner is "not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte" and not because of any finding that she had made false representations as to material matters in her certificate of candidacy. Montejo's petition before the COMELEC was therefore not a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy under 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but essentially a petition to declare private respondent ineligible. It is important to note this, because, as will presently be explained, proceedings under 78 have for their purpose to disqualify a person from being a candidate, whereas quo warranto proceedings have for their purpose to disqualify a person from holding public office. Jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings involving members of the House of Representatives is vested in the Electoral Tribunal of that body. Indeed, in the only cases in which this Court dealt with petitions for the cancellation of certificates of candidacy, the allegations were that the respondent candidates had made false representations in their certificates of candidacy with regard to their citizenship, 1 age, 2 or residence. 3 But in the generality of cases in which this Court passed upon the qualifications of respondents for office, this Court did so in the context of election protests 4 or quo warranto proceedings 5 filed after the proclamation of the respondents or protestees as winners. Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of an authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of a candidate. First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for determining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts) is a prejudicial question which should be determined lest he wins because of the very acts for which his disqualification is being sought. That is why it is provided that if the grounds for disqualification are established, a candidate will not be voted for; if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor will not be counted; and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he will not be proclaimed or his proclamation will be set aside. 6 Second is the fact that the determination of a candidate's eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this case, his domicile, may take a long time to make, extending beyond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amply demonstrated in the companion case (G.R. No. 120265, Agapito A. Aquino v. COMELEC) where the determination of Aquino's residence was still pending in the COMELEC even after the elections of May 8, 1995. This is contrary to the summary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy. That is why the law makes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its officers. 7 The law is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidacy that they are eligible for the

position which they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their qualifications to be made after the election and only in the event they are elected. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in certificates of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction. Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, 15) The purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other Tribunals as "sole judges" under the Constitution of the election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress or of the President and Vice President, as the case may be. By providing in 253 for the remedy of quo warranto for determining an elected official's qualifications after the results of elections are proclaimed, while being conspicuously silent about a pre-proclamation remedy based on the same ground, the Omnibus Election Code, or OEC, by its silence underscores the policy of not authorizing any inquiry into the qualifications of candidates unless they have been elected. Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, the COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, 1993 so as to provide in Rule 25, 1 the following: Grounds for disqualification. Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate. The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive matter which the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rulemaking power under Art. IX, A, 6 of the Constitution, cannot do. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence and citizenship of voters. (Art. IX, C, 2(3)) The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not only in their grounds but also in their consequences are proceedings for "disqualification" different from those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and in 40 of the Local Government Code and are for the purpose of barring an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a word, their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove the incumbent from office.

Consequently, that an individual possesses the qualifications for a public office does not imply that he is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has the qualifications prescribed in 2 of the law does not imply that he does not suffer from any of disqualifications provided in 4. Indeed, provisions for disqualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre-proclamation remedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of "grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the election protest," 8 through the use of "manufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for the purpose of altering the results of the election. This rationale does not apply to cases for determining a candidate's qualifications for office before the election. To the contrary, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for disqualification is brought who could be prejudiced because he could be prevented from assuming office even though in end he prevails. To summarize, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate may only be sought in an election protest or action for quo warranto filed pursuant to 253 of the Omnibus Election Code within 10 days after his proclamation. With respect to elective local officials (e.g., Governor, Vice Governor, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, etc.) such petition must be filed either with the COMELEC, the Regional Trial Courts, or Municipal Trial Courts, as provided in Art. IX, C, 2(2) of the Constitution. In the case of the President and Vice President, the petition must be filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Art. VII, 4, last paragraph), and in the case of the Senators, with the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case of Congressmen, with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. (Art. VI, 17) There is greater reason for not allowing before the election the filing of disqualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives, because of the same policy prohibiting the filing of pre-proclamation cases against such candidates. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over SPA No. 95009; that its proceedings in that case, including its questioned orders, are void; and that the eligibility of petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos for the office of Representative of the First District of Leyte may only be inquired into by the HRET. Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 95-009, including its questioned orders doted April 24, 1995, May 7, 1995, May 11, 1995 and May 25, 1995, declaring petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos ineligible and ordering her proclamation as Representative of the First District of Leyte suspended. To the extent that Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure authorizes proceedings for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office, it should considered void. The provincial board of canvassers should now proceed with the proclamation of petitioner. Narvasa, C.J., concurs.

PADILLA, J., dissenting: I regret that I cannot join the majority opinion as expressed in the well-written ponencia of Mr. Justice Kapunan. As in any controversy arising out of a Constitutional provision, the inquiry must begin and end with the provision itself. The controversy should not be blurred by what, to me, are academic disquisitions. In this particular controversy, the Constitutional provision on point states that "no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five (25) years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election." (Article VI, section 6) It has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residence has been understood as synonymous with domicile. This argument has been validated by no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantly the factual circumstances clearly and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his personal presence in the place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. With this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of different modalities within which the phrase "a resident thereof (meaning, the legislative district) for a period of not less than one year" would fit. The first instance is where a person's residence and domicile coincide in which case a person only has to prove that he has been domiciled in a permanent location for not less than a year before the election. A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domicile in which case he would have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies the one-year residence period in the district as the minimum period for eligibility to the position of congressional representative for the district. In either case, one would not be constitutionally disqualified for abandoning his residence in order to return to his domicile of origin, or better still, domicile of choice; neither would one be disqualified for abandoning altogether his domicile in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate. The most extreme circumstance would be a situation wherein a person maintains several residences in different districts. Since his domicile of origin continues as an option as long as there is no effective abandonment (animus non revertendi), he can practically choose the district most advantageous for him.

All these theoretical scenarios, however, are tempered by the unambiguous limitation that "for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election", he must be a resident in the district where he desires to be elected. To my mind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be synonymous with "domicile." In other words, the candidate's intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. And this, because of a definite Constitutional purpose. He must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the oneyear residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity, if not versatility. In the case of petitioner Imelda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the now assailed decision of the Comelec 2nd Division dated 24 April 1995 (as affirmed by the Comelec en banc) In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1948 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University of Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese High School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late Speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-president Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte. She lived with him in Batac, Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965 when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. During the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila. She claimed that in February 1986, she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992 respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. On August 24, 1994, respondent filed a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, requesting for cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila, in order that she may be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. (Annex 2-B, Answer). On August 31, 1994, respondent filed her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration (Annex 2-C, Answer) stating that she is a duly registered voter in 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro that she intends to register at Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. On January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. She filed with the Board of Election Inspectors CE Form No. 1, Voter Registration Record No. 94-3349772, wherein she alleged that she has resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of 6 months (Annex A, Petition).

On March 8, 1995, respondent filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Leyte, a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she also alleged that she has been a resident in the constituency where she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 months. The pertinent entries therein are as follows: 7. PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION: House-wife/ Teacher/ Social Worker 8. RESIDENCE (complete address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte Post Office Address for election purposes: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte 9. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHEREIN I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION: ________ Years Seven Months 10. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY. THAT I AM ELIGIBLE for said office; That I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic 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; That the obligation imposed by my oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and That the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge. (Sgd.) Imelda Romualdez-Marcos (Signature of Candidate) 2 Petitioner's aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 8 March 1995 contains the decisive component or seed of her disqualification. It is contained in her answer under oath of "seven months" to the query of "residence in the constituency wherein I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." It follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner is disqualified from the position of representative for the 1st congressional district of Leyte in the elections of 8 May 1995, for failure to meet the "not less than one-year residence in the constituency (1st district, Leyte) immediately preceding the day of election (8 May 1995)." Having arrived at petitioner's disqualification to be a representative of the first district of Leyte, the next important issue to resolve is whether or not the Comelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates for representative in said district. I am not unaware of the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Labo vs. Comelec, G.R. 86564, August 1, 1989, 176 SCRA 1 which gave the rationale as laid down in the early 1912 case of Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 that:

. . . . 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 non-eligible 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. Under Sec. 6 RA 6646, (An Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other purposes) (84 O.G. 905, 22 February 1988) it is provided that: . . . 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. There is no need to indulge in legal hermeneutics to sense the plain and unambiguous meaning of the provision quoted above. As the law now stands, the legislative policy does not limit its concern with the effect of a final judgement of disqualification only before the election, but even during or after the election. The law is clear that in all situations, the votes cast for a disqualified candidate SHALL NOT BE COUNTED. The law has also validated the jurisdiction of the Court or Commission on Election to continue hearing the petition for disqualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, if for any reason, he is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified. Since the present case is an after election scenario, the power to suspend proclamation (when evidence of his guilt is strong) is also explicit under the law. What happens then when after the elections are over, one is declared disqualified? Then, votes cast for him "shall not be counted" and in legal contemplation, he no longer received the highest number of votes. It stands to reason that Section 6 of RA 6646 does not make the second placer the winner simply because a "winning candidate is disqualified," but that the law considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest number of votes as a result of the votes cast for the disqualified candidate not being counted or considered.

As this law clearly reflects the legislative policy on the matter, then there is no reason why this Court should not re-examine and consequently abandon the doctrine in the Jun Labo case. It has been stated that "the qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" most especially when it is mandated by no less than the Constitution. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to proclaim the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, from among the qualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the 1st district of Leyte. Hermosisima, Jr. J., dissent. REGALADO, J., dissenting: While I agree with same of the factual bases of the majority opinion, I cannot arrive conjointly at the same conclusion drawn therefrom Hence, this dissent which assuredly is not formulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case." I go along with the majority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simplified as follows: 1. Petitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present Tacloban City, she being a legitimate daughter of parents who appear to have taken up permanent residence therein. She also went to school there and, for a time, taught in one of the schools in that city. 2. When she married then Rep. Ferdinand E. Marcos who was then domiciled in Batac, Ilocos Norte, by operation of law she acquired a new domicile in that place in 1954. 3. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected as a Senator and then as President, she lived with him and their family in San Juan, Rizal and then in Malacanang Palace in San Miguel, Manila. 4. Over those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in Batac, Ilocos Norte, then in San Juan, Rizal, and also in San Miguel, Manila, all these merely in the exercise of the right of suffrage. 5. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assumed those lofty positions successively, ever abandoned his domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte where he maintained his residence and invariably voted in all elections. 6. After the ouster of her husband from the presidency in 1986 and the sojourn of the Marcos family in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., she eventually returned to the Philippines in 1991 and resided in different places which she claimed to have been merely temporary residences.

7. In 1992, petitioner ran for election as President of the Philippines and in her certificate of candidacy she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. 8. On August 24, 1994, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila in order that she may "be reregistered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." On August 31, 1994, she followed this up with her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in Precinct No. 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. 9. On January 28, 1995, petitioner registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, for which purpose she filed with the therein Board of Election Inspectors a voter's registration record form alleging that she had resided in that municipality for six months. 10. On March 8, 1995, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the constituency where she sought to be elected. 11. On March 29, 1995, she filed an "Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy" wherein her answer in the original certificate of candidacy to item "8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK, TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:" was changed or replaced with a new entry reading "SINCE CHILDHOOD." The sole issue for resolution is whether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had complied with the residency requirement of one year as mandated by no less than Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. I do not intend to impose upon the time of my colleagues with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domicile. We have had enough of that and I understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter of international law, residence is understood to be synonymous with domicile. That is so understood in our jurisprudence and in American Law, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil, commercial and procedural laws whenever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling. Consequently, since in the present case the question of petitioner's residence is integrated in and inseparable from her domicile, I am addressing the issue from the standpoint of the concept of the latter term, specifically its permutations into the domicile of origin, domicile of choice and domicile by operation of law, as understood in American law from which for this case we have taken our jurisprudential bearings. My readings inform me that the domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. 1 In the instant case, we may grant that petitioner's domicile of origin, 2 at least as of 1938, was what is now Tacloban City.

Now, as I have observed earlier, domicile is said to be of three kinds, that is, domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. The first is the common case of the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that which is voluntarily acquired by a party or domicilium propio motu; the last which is consequential, as that of a wife arising from marriage, 3 is sometimes called domicilium necesarium. There is no debate that the domicile of origin can be lost or replaced by a domicile of choice or a domicile by operation of law subsequently acquired by the party. When petitioner contracted marriage in 1954 with then Rep. Marcos, by operation of law, not only international or American but of our own enactment, 4 she acquired her husband's domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her own domicile of origin in Tacloban City. Her subsequent changes of residence to San Juan, Rizal, then to San Miguel, Manila, thereafter to Honolulu, Hawaii, and back to now San Juan, Metro Manila do not appear to have resulted in her thereby acquiring new domiciles of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those places was by reason of the fortunes or misfortunes of her husband and his peregrinations in the assumption of new official positions or the loss of them. Her residence in Honolulu and, of course, those after her return to the Philippines were, as she claimed, against her will or only for transient purposes which could not have invested them with the status of domiciles of choice. 5 After petitioner's return to the Philippines in 1991 and up to the present imbroglio over her requisite residency in Tacloban City or Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, there is no showing that she ever attempted to acquire any other domicile of choice which could have resulted in the abandonment of her legal domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte. On that score, we note the majority's own submission 6 that, to successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate (a) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, (b) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and (c) acts which correspond with the purpose. We consequently have to also note that these requirements for the acquisition of a domicile of choice apply whether what is sought to be changed or substituted is a domicile of origin (domicilium originis) or a domicile by operation of law (domicilium necesarium). Since petitioner had lost her domicilium originis which had been replaced by her domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte which, if at all, can be the object of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar. To get out of this quandary, the majority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong in SPA 95-009 of the Commission on Elections, 7 and advances this novel proposition. It may be said that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952 (sic, 1954). By operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage became Batac, Ilocos Norte although there were no indications of an intention on her part to abandon her domicile of origin. Because of her husband's subsequent death and through the operation of the provisions of

the New Family Code already in force at the time, however, her legal domicile automatically reverted to her domicile of origin. . . . (Emphasis supplied). Firstly, I am puzzled why although it is conceded that petitioner had acquired a domicilium necesarium in Batac, Ilocos Norte, the majority insists on making a qualification that she did not intend to abandon her domicile of origin. I find this bewildering since, in this situation, it is the law that declares where petitioner's domicile is at any given time, and not her self-serving or putative intent to hold on to her former domicile. Otherwise, contrary to their own admission that one cannot have more than one domicile at a time, 8 the majority would be suggesting that petitioner retained Tacloban City as (for lack of a term in law since it does not exist therein) the equivalent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potential, or residual domicile. Secondly, domicile once lost in accordance with law can only be recovered likewise in accordance with law. However, we are here being titillated with the possibility of an automatic reversion to or reacquisition of a domicile of origin after the termination of the cause for its loss by operation of law. The majority agrees that since petitioner lost her domicile of origin by her marriage, the termination of the marriage also terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed by the ingeniousness of this theory which proves that, indeed, necessity is the mother of inventions. Regretfully, I find some difficulty in accepting either the logic or the validity of this argument. If a party loses his domicile of origin by obtaining a new domicile of choice, he thereby voluntarily abandons the former in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domicile, he does not per se recover his original domicile unless, by subsequent acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the same as his new domicile, which is precisely what petitioner belatedly and, evidently just for purposes of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do. One's subsequent abandonment of his domicile of choice cannot automatically restore his domicile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it would be absurd Pursued to its logical consequence, that theory of ipso jure reversion would rule out the fact that said party could already very well have obtained another domicile, either of choice or by operation of law, other than his domicile of origin. Significantly and obviously for this reason, the Family Code, which the majority inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it would impinge on one's freedom of choice. Now, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntarily abandoned her domicile of choice (unless we assume that she entered into the marital state against her will) but, on top of that, such abandonment was further affirmed through her acquisition of a new domicile by operation of law. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntary and legal abandonment of a domicile of origin. With much more reason, therefore, should we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in 1989, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso facto reacquired her domicile of origin which she lost in 1954. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to saying that during the period of marital coverture, she was simultaneously in possession and enjoyment of a domicile of origin which was only in a state of suspended animation.

Thus, the American rule is likewise to the effect that while after the husband's death the wife has the right to elect her own domicile, 9 she nevertheless retains the last domicile of her deceased husband until she makes an actual change. 10 In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrary, the presumption is that a wife's domicile or legal residence follows that of her husband and will continue after his death. 11 I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in support of the majority's theory based on Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this new code, the right and power to fix the family domicile is now shared by the spouses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first place was never exercised by the spouses, could affect the domicile fixed by the law for petitioner in 1954 and, for her husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conjugal or family domicile, but that has no bearing on this case. With the death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten married and established their own respective domiciles, the exercise of that joint power was and is no longer called for or material in the present factual setting of this controversy. Instead, what is of concern in petitioner's case was the matter of her having acquired or not her own domicile of choice. I agree with the majority's discourse on the virtues of the growing and expanded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with equal rights and recognition by Constitution and statutory conferment. However, I have searched in vain for a specific law or judicial pronouncement which either expressly or by necessary implication supports the majority's desired theory of automatic reacquisition of or reversion to the domicilium originis of petitioner. Definitely, as between the settled and desirable legal norms that should govern this issue, there is a world of difference; and, unquestionably, this should be resolved by legislative articulation but not by the eloquence of the well-turned phrase. In sum, petitioner having lost Tacloban City as her domicile of origin since 1954 and not having automatically reacquired any domicile therein, she cannot legally claim that her residency in the political constituency of which it is a part continued since her birth up to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amended/corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her admission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for only seven months prior to the election. These considerations render it unnecessary to further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner. ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, I vote to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority written by Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, more particularly on the issue of the petitioner's qualification. Under Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX of the Constitution, decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC may be brought to this Court only by the special civil action for certiorari under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251 [1979]; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 [1989]). Accordingly, a writ of certiorari may be granted only if the COMELEC has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court). Since the COMELEC has, undoubtedly, jurisdiction over the private respondent's petition, the only issue left is whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner. My careful and meticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 24 April 1995 of the COMELEC Second Division and the En Banc resolution of 7 May 1995 discloses total absence of abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse thereof. The resolution of the Second Division dispassionately and objectively discussed in minute details the facts which established beyond cavil that herein petitioner was disqualified as a candidate on the ground of lack of residence in the First Congressional District of Leyte. It has not misapplied, miscomprehended, or misunderstood facts or circumstances of substance pertinent to the issue of her residence. The majority opinion, however, overturned the COMELEC's findings of fact for lack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned Tolosa as her domicile of origin, which is allegedly within the First Congressional District of Leyte. I respectfully submit that the petitioner herself has provided the COMELEC, either by admission or by documentary evidence, overwhelming proof of the loss or abandonment of her domicile of origin, which is Tacloban City and not Tolosa, Leyte. Assuming that she decided to live again in her domicile of origin, that became her second domicile of choice, where her stay, unfortunately, was for only seven months before the day of the election. She was then disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. A holding to the contrary would be arbitrary. It may indeed be conceded that the petitioner's domicile of choice was either Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte. Nevertheless, she lost it by operation of law sometime in May 1954 upon her marriage to the then Congressman (later, President) Ferdinand E. Marcos. A domicile by operation of law is that domicile which the law attributes to a person, independently of his own intention or actual residence, as results from legal domestic relations as that of the wife arising from marriage (28 C.J.S. Domicile 7, 11). Under the governing law then, Article 110 of the Civil Code, her new domicile or her domicile of choice was the domicile of her husband, which was Batac, Ilocos Norte. Said Article reads as follows: Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. Commenting thereon, civilist Arturo M. Tolentino states: Although the duty of the spouses to live together is mutual, the husband has a predominant right because he is empowered by law to fix the family residence. This right even predominates over some rights recognized by law in the wife. For instance, under article 117 the wife may engage in business or practice a profession or occupation. But because of the power of the husband to fix

the family domicile he may fix it at such a place as would make it impossible for the wife to continue in business or in her profession. For justifiable reasons, however, the wife may be exempted from living in the residence chosen by the husband. The husband cannot validly allege desertion by the wife who refuses to follow him to a new place of residence, when it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable home belonging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, 1985 ed., 339). Under common law, a woman upon her marriage loses her own domicile and, by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends. Her domicile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the same as his, and subject to certain limitations, he can change her domicile by changing his own (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile 48, 37). It must, however, be pointed out that under Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term "family domicile," and not family residence, as "the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102). The theory of automatic restoration of a woman's domicile of origin upon the death of her husband, which the majority opinion adopts to overcome the legal effect of the petitioner's marriage on her domicile, is unsupported by law and by jurisprudence. The settled doctrine is that after the husband's death the wife has a right to elect her own domicile, but she retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change (28 C.J.S. Domicile 12, 27). Or, on the death of the husband, the power of the wife to acquire her own domicile is revived, but until she exercises the power her domicile remains that of the husband at the time of his death (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile 62, 45). Note that what is revived is not her domicile of origin but her power to acquire her own domicile. Clearly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner's domicile was that of her husband at the time of his death which was Batac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences in San Juan, Metro Manila, and San Miguel, Manila, were their residences for convenience to enable her husband to effectively perform his official duties. Their residence in San Juan was a conjugal home, and it was there to which she returned in 1991 when she was already a widow. In her sworn certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President in the synchronized elections of May 1992, she indicated therein that she was a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. She also voted in the said elections in that place. On the basis of her evidence, it was only on 24 August 1994 when she exercised her right as a widow to acquire her own domicile in Tolosa, Leyte, through her sworn statement requesting the Election Officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the permanent list of voters in Precinct 157 thereat and praying that she be "re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, the place of [her] birth and permanent residence" (photocopy of Exhibit "B,"

attached as Annex "2" of private respondent Montejo's Comment). Notably, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her place of birth when, in her Voter's Affidavit sworn to on 15 March 1992 (photocopy of Exhibit "C," attached as Annex "3," Id.), her Voter Registration Record sworn to on 28 January 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "E," attached as Annex "5," Id.), and her Certificate of Candidacy sworn to on 8 March 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "A," attached as Annex "1," Id.), she solemnly declared that she was born in Manila. The petitioner is even uncertain as to her domicile of origin. Is it Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte? In the affidavit attached to her Answer to the petition for disqualification (Annex "I" of Petition), she declared under oath that her "domicile or residence is Tacloban City." If she did intend to return to such domicile or residence of origin why did she inform the Election Officer of San Juan that she would transfer to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, and indicate in her Voter's Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is Olot, Tolosa, Leyte? While this uncertainty is not important insofar as residence in the congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty-one years had already lapsed since she had lost or abandoned her domicile of origin by virtue of marriage and that such length of time diminished her power of recollection or blurred her memory. I find to be misplaced the reliance by the majority opinion on Faypon vs. Quirino (96 Phil. 294 [1954]), and the subsequent cases which established the principle that absence from original residence or domicile of origin to pursue studies, practice one's profession, or engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or domicile. So is the reliance on Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one's "occupation; profession; employment in private and public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law" is not deemed as loss of original residence. Those cases and legal provision do not include marriage of a woman. The reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article 110 of the Civil Code. If it were the intention of this Court or of the legislature to consider the marriage of a woman as a circumstance which would not operate as an abandonment of domicile (of origin or of choice), then such cases and legal provision should have expressly mentioned the same. This Court should not accept as gospel truth the self-serving claim of the petitioner in her affidavit (Annex "A" of her Answer in COMELEC SPA No. 95-009; Annex "I" of Petition) that her "domicile or residence of origin is Tacloban City," and that she "never intended to abandon this domicile or residence of origin to which [she] always intended to return whenever absent." Such a claim of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article 110 of the Civil Code. Besides, the facts and circumstances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner's life after her marriage in 1954 conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her domicile of origin and had acquired a new one animo et facto (KOSSUTH KENT KENNAN, A Treatise on Residence and Domicile, [1934], 214, 326). Neither should this Court place complete trust on the petitioner's claim that she "merely committed an honest mistake" in writing down the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement in the certificate of candidacy. Such a claim is self-serving

and, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, would be all sound and fury signifying nothing. To me, she did not commit any mistake, honest or otherwise; what she stated was the truth. The majority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it (Imperial Victory Shipping Agency vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 [1991]; P.T. Cerna Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 19 [1993]). Having admitted marriage to the then Congressman Marcos, the petitioner could not deny the legal consequence thereof on the change of her domicile to that of her husband. The majority opinion rules or at least concludes that "[b]y operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage automatically became Batac, Ilocos Norte." That conclusion is consistent with Article 110 of the Civil Code. Since she is presumed to retain her deceased husband's domicile until she exercises her revived power to acquire her own domicile, the burden is upon her to prove that she has exercised her right to acquire her own domicile. She miserably failed to discharge that burden. I vote to deny the petition. EN BANC [G.R. No. 127116. April 8, 1997] ALEX L. DAVID, in his own behalf as Barangay Chairman of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City and as President of the LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY SA PILIPINAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, Department of Interior and Local Government, and THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, Department of Budget and Management, respondents. [G.R. No. 128039. April 8, 1997] LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY QUEZON CITY CHAPTER, Represented by BONIFACIO M. RILLON, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, respondents.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.: The two petitions before us raise a common question: How long is the term of office of barangay chairmen and other barangay officials who were elected to their respective offices on the second Monday of May 1994? Is it three years, as provided by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code) or five years, as contained in RA 6679? Contending that their term is five years, petitioners ask this Court to order the cancellation of the scheduled barangay election this coming May 12, 1997 and to reset it to the second Monday of May, 1999. The Antecedents

G.R. No. 127116 In his capacity as barangay chairman of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City and as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Petitioner Alex L. David filed on December 2, 1996 a petition for prohibition docketed in this Court as G.R. No. 127116, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to prohibit the holding of the barangay election scheduled on the second Monday of May 1997. On January 14, 1997, the Court resolved to require the respondents to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of fifteen days ending on January 29, 1997. On January 29, 1997, the Solicitor General filed his four-page Comment siding with petitioner and praying that the election scheduled on May 12, 1997 be held in abeyance. Respondent Commission on Elections filed a separate Comment, dated February 1, 1997 opposing the petition. On February 11, 1997, the Court issued a Resolution giving due course to the petition and requiring the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of twenty days from notice. It also requested former Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. [1] to act as amicus curiae and to file a memorandum also within a non-extendible period of twenty days. It noted but did not grant petitioners Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated January 31, 1997 (as well as his Urgent Ex-Parte Second Motion to the same effect, dated March 6, 1997). Accordingly, the parties filed their respective memoranda. The Petition for Leave to Intervene filed on March 17, 1997 by Punong Barangay Rodson F. Mayor was denied as it would just unduly delay the resolution of the case, his interest like those of all other barangay officials being already adequately represented by Petitioner David who filed this petition as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas.
i

G.R. No. 128039 On February 20, 1997, Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter represented by its president Bonifacio M. Rillon filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. 128039, to seek a judicial review by certiorari to declare as unconstitutional: 1. Section 43(c) of R.A. 7160 which reads as follows:

(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three (3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May 1994. 2. COMELEC Resolution Nos. 2880 and 2887 fixing the date of the holding of the barangay elections on May 12, 1997 and other activities related thereto; 3. The budgetary appropriation of P400 million contained in Republic Act No. 8250 otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act of 1997 intended to defray the costs and expenses in holding the 1997 barangay elections; [2]
ii

Comelec Resolution 2880, [3] promulgated on December 27, 1996 and referred to above, adopted a Calendar of Activities and List and Periods of Certain Prohibited Acts for the May 12, 1997
iii

Barangay Elections. On the other hand, Comelec Resolution 2887 promulgated on February 5, 1997 moved certain dates fixed in Resolution 2880. [4]
iv

Acting on the petition, the Court on February 25, 1997 required respondents to submit their comment thereon within a non-extendible period of ten days ending on March 7, 1997. The Court further resolved to consolidate the two cases inasmuch as they raised basically the same issue. Respondent Commission filed its Comment on March 6, 1997 [5] and the Solicitor General, in representation of the other respondent, filed his on March 6, 1997. Petitioners Urgent Omnibus Motion for oral argument and temporary restraining order was noted but not granted. The petition was deemed submitted for resolution by the Court without need of memoranda.
v

The Issues Both petitions though worded differently raise the same ultimate issue: How long is the term of office of barangay officials? Petitioners [6] contend that under Sec. 2 of Republic Act No. 6653, approved on May 6, 1988, (t)he term of office of barangay officials shall be for five (5) years x x x. This is reiterated in Republic Act No. 6679, approved on November 4, 1988, which reset the barangay elections from the second Monday of November 1988 to March 28, 1989 and provided in Sec. 1 thereof that such five-year term shall begin on the first day of May 1989 and ending on the thirty-first day of May 1994. Petitioners further aver [7] that although Sec. 43 of RA 7160 reduced the term of office of all local elective officials to three years, such reduction does not apply to barangay officials because (1) RA 6679 is a special law applicable only to barangays while RA 7160 is a general law which applies to all other local government units; (2) RA 7160 does not expressly or impliedly repeal RA 6679 insofar as the term of barangay officials is concerned; (3) while Sec. 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution fixes the term of elective local officials at three years, the same provision states that the term of barangay officials shall be determined by law; and (4) thus, it follows that the constitutional intention is to grant barangay officials any term, except three years; otherwise, there would be no rhyme or reason for the framers of the Constitution to except barangay officials from the three year term found in Sec. 8 (of) Article X of the Constitution. Petitioners conclude (1) that the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion when it promulgated Resolution Nos. 2880 and 2887 because it substituted its own will for that of the legislative and usurped the judicial function x x x by interpreting the conflicting provisions of Sec. 1 of RA 6679 and Sec. 43 (c) of RA 7160; and (2) that the appropriation of P400 million in the General Appropriation Act of 1997 (RA 8250) to be used in the conduct of the barangay elections on May 12, 1997 is itself unconstitutional and a waste of public funds.
vi vii

The Solicitor General agrees with petitioners, arguing that RA 6679 was not repealed by RA 7160 and thus he believes that the holding of the barangay elections (o)n the second Monday of May 1997 is without sufficient legal basis. Respondent Commission on Elections, through Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo, defends its assailed Resolutions and maintains that the repealing clause of RA 7160 includes all laws, whether

general or special, inconsistent with the provisions of the Local Government Code, citing this Courts dictum in Paras vs. Comelec [8] that the next regular election involving the barangay office is barely seven (7) months away, the same having been scheduled in May 1997. Furthermore, RA 8250 (the General Appropriations Act for 1997) and RA 8189 (providing for a general registration of voters) both indicate that Congress considered that the barangay elections shall take place in May, 1997, as provided for in RA 7160, Sec. 43 (c). [9] Besides, petitioners cannot claim a term of more than three years since they were elected under the aegis of the Local Government Code of 1991 which prescribes a term of only three years. Finally, Respondent Comelec denies the charge of grave abuse of discretion stating that the question presented x x x is a purely legal one involving no exercise of an act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. [10]
viii ix x

As amicus curiae, former Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. urges the Court to deny the petitions because (1) the Local Autonomy Code repealed both RA 6679 and 6653 not only by implication but by design as well; (2) the legislative intent is to shorten the term of barangay officials to three years; (3) the barangay officials should not have a term longer than that of their administrative superiors, the city and municipal mayors; and (4) barangay officials are estopped from contesting the applicability of the three-year term provided by the Local Government Code as they were elected under the provisions of said Code. From the foregoing discussions of the parties, the Court believes that the issues can be condensed into three, as follows: 1. Which law governs the term of office of barangay officials: RA 7160 or RA 6679? 2. 3. Is RA 7160 insofar as it shortened such term to only three years constitutional? Are petitioners estopped from claiming a term other than that provided under RA 7160?

The Courts Ruling The petitions are devoid of merit. Brief Historical Background of Barangay Elections For a clear understanding of the issues, it is necessary to delve briefly into the history of barangay elections. As a unit of government, the barangay antedated the Spanish conquest of the Philippines. The word barangay is derived from the Malay balangay, a boat which transported them (the Malays) to these shores. [11] Quoting from Juan de Plasencia, a Franciscan missionary in 1577, Historian Conrado Benitez [12] wrote that the barangay was ruled by a dato who exercised absolute powers of government. While the Spaniards kept the barangay as the basic structure of government, they stripped the dato or rajah of his powers. [13] Instead, power was centralized nationally in the governor general and locally in the encomiendero and later, in the alcalde mayor and the gobernadorcillo. The dato or rajah was much later renamed cabeza de barangay,
xi xii xiii

who was elected by the local citizens possessing property. The position degenerated from a title of honor to that of a mere government employee. Only the poor who needed a salary, no matter how low, accepted the post. [14]
xiv

After the Americans colonized the Philippines, the barangays became known as barrios. [15] For some time, the laws governing barrio governments were found in the Revised Administrative Code of 1916 and later in the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. [16] Barrios were granted autonomy by the original Barrio Charter, RA 2370, and formally recognized as quasi-municipal corporations [17] by the Revised Barrio Charter, RA 3590. During the martial law regime, barrios were declared or renamed barangays -- a reversion really to their pre-Spanish names -- by PD. No. 86 and PD No. 557. Their basic organization and functions under RA 3590, which was expressly adopted as the Barangay Charter, were retained. However, the titles of the officials were changed to barangay captain, barangay councilman, barangay secretary and barangay treasurer.
xv xvi xvii

Pursuant to Sec. 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, [18] a Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) and six Kagawads ng Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Councilmen), who shall constitute the presiding officer and members of the Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Council) respectively were first elected on May 17, 1982. They had a term of six years which began on June 7, 1982.
xviii

The Local Government Code of 1983 [19] also fixed the term of office of local elective officials at six years. [20] Under this Code, the chief officials of the barangay were the punong barangay, six elective sangguniang barangay members, the kabataang barangay chairman, a barangay secretary and a barangay treasurer. [21]
xix xx xxi

B.P. Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election Code, [22] reiterated that barangay officials shall hold office for six years, and stated that their election was to be held on the second Monday of May nineteen hundred and eighty eight and on the same day every six years thereafter. [23]
xxii xxiii

This election scheduled by B.P. Blg. 881 on the second Monday of May 1988 was reset to the second Monday of November 1988 and every five years thereafter [24] by RA 6653. Under this law, the term of office of the barangay officials was cut to five years [25] and the punong barangay was to be chosen from among themselves by seven kagawads, who in turn were to be elected at large by the barangay electorate. [26]
xxiv xxv xxvi

But the election date set by RA 6653 on the second Monday of November 1988 was again postponed and reset to March 28, 1989 by RA 6679, [27] and the term of office of barangay officials was to begin on May 1, 1989 and to end on May 31, 1994. RA 6679 further provided that there shall be held a regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May 1994 and on the same day every five (5) years thereafter. Their term shall be for five years x x x. [28] Significantly, the manner of election of the punong barangay was changed. Sec. 5 of said law ordained that while the seven kagawads were to be elected by the registered voters of the barangay, (t)he candidate who obtains the highest number of votes shall be the punong barangay and in the event of a tie, there shall be a drawing of lots under the supervision of the Commission on Elections.
xxvii xxviii

Under the Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160, barangay officials were introduced: (1)

xxix

[29]

several provisions concerning

The term of office was reduced to three years, as follows:

SEC. 43. Term of Office. -xxx xxx xxx

(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three (3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May, 1994 (Underscoring supplied.) (2) The composition of the Sangguniang Barangay and the manner of electing its officials were altered, inter alia, the barangay chairman was to be elected directly by the electorate, as follows: SEC. 387. Chief Officials and Offices. -- (a) There shall be in each barangay a punong barangay, seven (7) sanggunian barangay members, the sanggunian kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary and a barangay treasurer. xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 390. Composition. -- The Sangguniang barangay, the legislative body of the barangay, shall be composed of the punong barangay as presiding officer, and the seven (7) regular sanguniang barangay members elected at large and the sanguniang kabataan chairman as members. SEC. 41. Manner of Election. -- (a) The x x x punong barangay shall be elected at large x x x by the qualified voters in the barangay. (Underscoring supplied.) Pursuant to the foregoing mandates of the Local Autonomy Code, the qualified barangay voters actually voted for one punong barangay and seven (7) kagawads during the barangay elections held on May 9, 1994. In other words, the punong barangay was elected directly and separately by the electorate, and not by the seven (7) kagawads from among themselves. The First Issue: Clear Legislative Intent and Design to Limit Term to Three Years In light of the foregoing brief historical background, the intent and design of the legislature to limit the term of barangay officials to only three (3) years as provided under the Local Government Code emerges as bright as the sunlight. The cardinal rule in the interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the law. [30] And three years is the obvious intent.
xxx

First. RA 7160, the Local Government Code, was enacted later than RA 6679. It is basic that in case of an irreconciliable conflict between two laws of different vintages, the later enactment

prevails. [31] Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. The rationale is simple: a later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later legislative will. It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. In enacting the older law, the legislators could not have known the newer one and hence could not have intended to change what they did not know. Under the Civil Code, laws are repealed only by subsequent ones -[32] and not the other way around.
xxxi xxxii

Under Sec. 43-c of RA 7160, the term of office of barangay officials was fixed at three (3) years which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May 1994. This provision is clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to Sec. 1 of RA 6679 which states that such term shall be for five years. Note that both laws refer to the same officials who were elected on the second Monday of May 1994. Second. RA 6679 requires the barangay voters to elect seven kagawads and the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes shall automatically be the punong barangay. RA 6653 empowers the seven elected barangay kagawads to select the punong barangay from among themselves. On the other hand, the Local Autonomy Code mandates a direct vote on the barangay chairman by the entire barangay electorate, separately from the seven kagawads. Hence, under the Code, voters elect eight barangay officials, namely, the punong barangay plus the seven kagawads. Under both RA 6679 and 6653, they vote for only seven kagawads, and not for the barangay chairman. Third. During the barangay elections held on May 9, 1994 (second Monday), the voters actually and directly elected one punong barangay and seven kagawads. If we agree with the thesis of petitioners, it follows that all the punong barangays were elected illegally and thus, Petitioner Alex David cannot claim to be a validly elected barangay chairman, much less president of the national league of barangays which he purports to represent in this petition. It then necessarily follows also that he is not the real party-in-interest and on that ground, his petition should be summarily dismissed. Fourth.In enacting the general appropriations act of 1997, [33] Congress appropriated the amount of P400 million to cover expenses for the holding of barangay elections this year. Likewise, under Sec. 7 of RA 8189, Congress ordained that a general registration of voters shall be held immediately after the barangay elections in 1997. These are clear and express contemporaneous statements of Congress that barangay officials shall be elected this May, in accordance with Sec. 43-c of RA 7160.
xxxiii

Fifth. In Paras vs. Comelec, [34] this Court said that the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away, the same having been scheduled in May, 1997. This judicial decision, per Article 8 of the Civil Code, is now a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
xxxiv

Sixth. Petitioners pompously claim that RA 6679, being a special law, should prevail over RA 7160, an alleged general law pursuant to the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant. Petitioners are wrong. RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. It specifically and definitively provides in its Sec. 43-c that the term of

office of barangay officials x x x shall be for three years. It is a special provision that applies only to the term of barangay officials who were elected on the second Monday of May 1994. With such particularity, the provision cannot be deemed a general law. Petitioner may be correct in alleging that RA 6679 is a special law, but they are incorrect in stating (without however giving the reasons therefor) that RA 7160 is necessarily a general law. [35] It is a special law insofar as it governs the term of office of barangay officials. In its repealing clause, [36] RA 7160 states that all general and special laws x x x which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. There being a clear repugnance and incompatibility between the two specific provisions, they cannot stand together. The later law, RA 7160, should thus prevail in accordance with its repealing clause. When a subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former enactments, the latter is deemed repealed. [37]
xxxv xxxvi xxxvii

The Second Issue: Three-Year Term Not Repugnant to Constitution Sec. 8, Article X of the Constitution states: SEC. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years, and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter posits that by excepting barangay officials whose term shall be determined by law from the general provision fixing the term of elective local officials at three years, the Constitution thereby impliedly prohibits Congress from legislating a three-year term for such officers. We find this theory rather novel but nonetheless logically and legally flawed. Undoubtedly, the Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term of office for barangay officials. It merely left the determination of such term to the lawmaking body, without any specific limitation or prohibition, thereby leaving to the lawmakers full discretion to fix such term in accordance with the exigencies of public service. It must be remembered that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. [38] For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal (not just implied) breach of the Constitution. [39] To strike down a law as unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits, the statute permits. [40] The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge this burden and to show clearly the unconstitutionality they aver.
xxxviii xxxix xl

There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that Sec. 43-c of RA 7160 is constitutional. Sec. 8, Article X of the Constitution -- limiting the term of all elective local officials to three years, except that of barangay officials which shall be determined by law -- was an amendment proposed by Constitutional Commissioner (now Supreme Court Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr. According to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., the amendment was readily accepted without much discussion and formally approved. Indeed, a search into the Record of the Constitutional

Commission yielded only a few pages [41] of actual deliberations, the portions pertinent to the Constitutional Commissions intent being the following:
xli

MR. NOLLEDO. One clarificatory question, Madam President. What will be the term of the office of barangay officials as provided for? MR. DAVIDE. MR. NOLLEDO. MR. DAVIDE. xxx xxx xxx As may be determined by law. As provided for in the Local Government Code? Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other comment? Is there any objection to this proposed new section as submitted by Commissioner Davide and accepted by the Committee? MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, does this prohibition to serve for more than three consecutive terms apply to barangay officials? MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, the voting that we had on the terms of office did not include the barangay officials because it was then the stand of the Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments that the term of barangay officials must be determined by law. So it is now for the law to determine whether the restriction on the number of reelections will be included in the Local Government Code. MR. RODRIGO. MR. DAVIDE. MR. RODRIGO. So that is up to Congress to decide. Yes. I just wanted that clear in the record.

Although the discussions in the Constitutional Commission were very brief, they nonetheless provide the exact answer to the main issue. To the question at issue here on how long the term of barangay officials is, the answer of the Commission was simple, clear and quick: As may be determined by law; more precisely, (a)s provided for in the Local Autonomy Code. And the Local Autonomy Code, in its Sec. 43-c, limits their term to three years. The Third Issue: Petitioners Estopped From Challenging Their Three-Year Terms We have already shown that constitutionally, statutorily, logically, historically and commonsensically, the petitions are completely devoid of merit. And we could have ended our Decision right here. But there is one last point why petitioners have no moral ascendancy for their dubious claim to a longer term of office: the equities of their own petition militate against them. As pointed out by Amicus Curiae Pimentel, [42] petitioners are barred by estoppel from pursuing their petitions.
xlii

Respondent Commission on Elections submitted as Annex A of its memorandum, [43] a machine copy of the certificate of candidacy of Petitioner Alex L. David in the May 9, 1994 barangay elections, the authenticity of which was not denied by said petitioner. In said certificate of candidacy, he expressly stated under oath that he was announcing his candidacy for the office of punong barangay for Barangay 77, Zone 7 of Kalookan City and that he was eligible for said office. The Comelec also submitted as Annex B [44] to its said memorandum, a certified statement of the votes obtained by the candidates in said elections, thus:
xliii xliv

BARANGAY 77 CERTIFIED LIST OF CANDIDATES VOTES OBTAINED May 9, 1994 BARANGAY ELECTIONS PUNONG BARANGAY 1. DAVID, ALEX L. KAGAWAD 1. Magalona, Ruben 2. Quinto, Nelson L. 3. Ramon, Dolores Z. 4. Dela Pena, Roberto T. 5. Castillo, Luciana 6. Lorico, Amy A. 7. Valencia, Arnold 8. Ang, Jose 9. Dequilla, Teresita D. 10.Primavera, Marcelina 150 130 120 115 114 107 102 97 58 52 VOTES OBTAINED 112

If, as claimed by petitioners, the applicable law is RA 6679, then (1) Petitioner David should not have run and could not have been elected chairman of his barangay because under RA 6679, there was to be no direct election for the punong barangay; the kagawad candidate who obtained the highest number of votes was to be automatically elected barangay chairman; (2) thus, applying said law, the punong barangay should have been Ruben Magalona, who obtained the highest number of votes among the kagawads -- 150, which was much more than Davids 112; (3) the electorate should have elected only seven kagawads and not one punong barangay plus seven kagawads. In other words, following petitioners own theory, the election of Petitioner David as well as all the barangay chairmen of the two Liga petitioners was illegal. The sum total of these absurdities in petitioners theory is that barangay officials are estopped from asking for any term other than that which they ran for and were elected to, under the law

governing their very claim to such offices: namely, RA 7160, the Local Government Code. Petitioners belated claim of ignorance as to what law governed their election to office in 1994 is unacceptable because under Art. 3 of the Civil Code, (i)gnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Epilogue It is obvious that these two petitions must fail. The Constitution and the laws do not support them. Extant jurisprudence militates against them. Reason and common sense reject them. Equity and morality abhor them. They are subtle but nonetheless self-serving propositions to lengthen governance without a mandate from the governed. In a democracy, elected leaders can legally and morally justify their reign only by obtaining the voluntary consent of the electorate. In this case however, petitioners propose to extend their terms not by seeking the peoples vote but by faulty legal argumentation. This Court cannot and will not grant its imprimatur to such untenable proposition. If they want to continue serving, they must get a new mandate in the elections scheduled on May 12, 1997. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED for being completely devoid of merit. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Vitug, J., concurs except that on the matter of estoppel he reserved his vote. Hermosisima, Jr., J., on leave. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995 LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE HERCULANO TECH, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 70, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BINANGONAN RIZAL; FLEET DEVELOPMENT, INC. and CARLITO ARROYO; THE MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE AURELIO C. TRAMPE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 163, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG; MANILA MARINE LIFE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC. represented by, MR. TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG, METRO MANILA and/or MAYOR RICARDO D. PAPA, JR., respondents. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ALEJANDRO A. MARQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; GREENFIELD VENTURES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and R. J. ORION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 162, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; IRMA FISHING & TRADING CORP.; ARTM FISHING CORP.; BDR CORPORATION, MIRT CORPORATION and TRIM CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS, respondents. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; BLUE LAGOON FISHING CORP. and ALCRIS CHICKEN GROWERS, INC.; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; AGP FISH VENTURES, INC., represented by its PRESIDENT ALFONSO PUYAT; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 161, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; SEA MAR TRADING CO. INC.; EASTERN LAGOON FISHING CORP.; MINAMAR FISHING CORP.; MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS, respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: It is difficult for a man, scavenging on the garbage dump created by affluence and profligate consumption and extravagance of the rich or fishing in the murky waters of the Pasig River and the Laguna Lake or making a clearing in the forest so that he can produce food for his family, to understand why protecting birds, fish, and trees is more important than protecting him and keeping his family alive. How do we strike a balance between environmental protection, on the one hand, and the individual personal interests of people, on the other? Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development, Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." This Government Agency is supposed to carry out and effectuate the aforesaid declared policy, so as to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns, in the act clearly named, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic development. Presidential Decree No. 813 of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos amended certain sections of Republic Act No. 4850 because of the concern for the rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of the lake for municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. Concern on the part of the Government and the general public over: the environment impact of development on the water quality and ecology of the lake and its related river systems; the inflow of polluted water from the Pasig River, industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes from developed areas around the lake; the increasing urbanization which induced the deterioration of the lake, since water quality studies have shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same; and the floods in Metropolitan Manila area and the lakeshore towns which will influence the hydraulic system of Laguna de Bay, since any scheme of controlling the floods will necessarily involve the lake and its river systems, likewise gave impetus to the creation of the Authority. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4850 was amended to read as follows: Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the national policy to promote, and accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns hereinafter referred to as the region, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic development and to carry out the development of the Laguna Lake region with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. 1 Special powers of the Authority, pertinent to the issues in this case, include:

Sec. 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby further amended by adding thereto seven new paragraphs to be known as paragraphs (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) which shall read as follows: xxx xxx xxx (j) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to engage in fish production and other aqua-culture projects in Laguna de Bay and other bodies of water within its jurisdiction and in pursuance thereof to conduct studies and make experiments, whenever necessary, with the collaboration and assistance of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, with the end in view of improving present techniques and practices. Provided, that until modified, altered or amended by the procedure provided in the following sub-paragraph, the present laws, rules and permits or authorizations remain in force; (k) For the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in Laguna de Bay, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue new permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or affecting the said lake including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like, and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality control and management and to collect necessary fees for said activities and projects: Provided, That the fees collected for fisheries may be shared between the Authority and other government agencies and political sub-divisions in such proportion as may be determined by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Authority's Board: Provided, further, That the Authority's Board may determine new areas of fishery development or activities which it may place under the supervision of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources taking into account the overall development plans and programs for Laguna de Bay and related bodies of water: Provided, finally, That the Authority shall subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines promulgate such rules and regulations which shall govern fisheries development activities in Laguna de Bay which shall take into consideration among others the following: socio-economic amelioration of bonafide resident fishermen whether individually or collectively in the form of cooperatives, lakeshore town development, a master plan for fishpen construction and operation, communal fishing ground for lake shore town residents, and preference to lake shore town residents in hiring laborer for fishery projects; (l) To require the cities and municipalities embraced within the region to pass appropriate zoning ordinances and other regulatory measures necessary to carry out the objectives of the Authority and enforce the same with the assistance of the Authority; (m) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to exercise water rights over public waters within the Laguna de Bay region whenever necessary to carry out the Authority's projects; (n) To act in coordination with existing governmental agencies in establishing water quality standards for industrial, agricultural and municipal waste discharges into the lake and to cooperate with said existing agencies of the government of the Philippines in enforcing such standards, or to separately pursue enforcement and penalty actions as provided for in Section 4

(d) and Section 39-A of this Act: Provided, That in case of conflict on the appropriate water quality standard to be enforced such conflict shall be resolved thru the NEDA Board. 2 To more effectively perform the role of the Authority under Republic Act No. 4850, as though Presidential Decree No. 813 were not thought to be completely effective, the Chief Executive, feeling that the land and waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious management to their optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecological balance, the competing options for the use of such resources and conflicting jurisdictions over such uses having created undue constraints on the institutional capabilities of the Authority in the light of the limited powers vested in it by its charter, Executive Order No. 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority and named and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term "Laguna de Bay Region". Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of Executive Order No. 927 which include in particular the sharing of fees: Sec 2. Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Water within the Lake Region: To effectively regulate and monitor activities in the Laguna de Bay region, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. For the purpose of this Executive Order, the term "Laguna de Bay Region" shall refer to the Provinces of Rizal and Laguna; the Cities of San Pablo, Pasay, Caloocan, Quezon, Manila and Tagaytay; the towns of Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas Province; the towns of Silang and Carmona in Cavite Province; the town of Lucban in Quezon Province; and the towns of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa, and Pateros in Metro Manila. Sec 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation, municipal, industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose; Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing with other government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary, shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will be shared in the following manner; 20 percent of the fee shall go to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project Development Fund which shall be administered by a Council and the remaining 75 percent shall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation within the three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and Management Plan, the sharing will be modified as follows: 35 percent of the fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goes to the Project Development Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall be retained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall form part of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an exception to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234. (Emphasis supplied) It is important to note that Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 813 defined the term "Laguna Lake" in this manner:

Sec 41. Definition of Terms. (11) Laguna Lake or Lake. Whenever Laguna Lake or lake is used in this Act, the same shall refer to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake water when it is at the average annual maximum lake level of elevation 12.50 meters, as referred to a datum 10.00 meters below mean lower low water (M.L.L.W). Lands located at and below such elevation are public lands which form part of the bed of said lake. Then came Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters because R.A. 7160 provides: Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. (a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) The Sangguniang Bayan may: (1) Grant fishing privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussel or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal waters, as determined by it; . . . . (2) Grant privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fry or kawag-kawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipal waters by nets, traps or other fishing gears to marginal fishermen free from any rental fee, charges or any other imposition whatsoever. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 447. Power, Duties, Functions and Compensation. . . . . xxx xxx xxx (XI) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grant exclusive privileges of constructing fish corrals or fishpens, or the taking or catching of bangus fry, prawn fry or kawag-kawag or fry of any species or fish within the municipal waters. xxx xxx xxx Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen permits. Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages, as of July, 1995, occupied almost one-third of the entire lake water surface area, increasing the occupation drastically from 7,000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21,000 hectares in 1995. The Mayor's permit to

construct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and the Laguna Lake carrying capacity. To be sure, the implementation by the lakeshore municipalities of separate independent policies in the operation of fishpens and fishcages within their claimed territorial municipal waters in the lake and their indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits have already saturated the lake area with fishpens, thereby aggravating the current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Authority served notice to the general public that: In compliance with the instructions of His Excellency PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS given on June 23, 1993 at Pila, Laguna pursuant to Republic Act 4850 as amended by Presidential Decree 813 and Executive Order 927 series of 1983 and in line with the policies and programs of the Presidential Task Force on Illegal Fishpens and Illegal Fishing, the general public is hereby notified that: 1. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay Region, which were not registered or to which no application for registration and/or permit has been filed with Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March 31, 1993 are hereby declared outrightly as illegal. 2. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared as illegal shall be subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by the Presidential Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing. 3. Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as illegal shall, without prejudice to demolition of their structures be criminally charged in accordance with Section 39-A of Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 for violation of the same laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty of imprisonment of not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos or both at the discretion of the court. All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall have one (1) month on or before 27 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA why their said fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures should not be demolished/dismantled. One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of the illegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their respective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise, demolition shall be effected. Reacting thereto, the affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the Authority before various regional trial courts, to wit: (a) Civil Case No. 759-B, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal, filed by Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; (b) Civil Case No. 64049, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig, filed by IRMA Fishing and Trading Corp., ARTM Fishing Corp., BDR Corp., MIRT

Corp. and TRIM Corp.; (c) Civil Case No. 566, for Declaratory Relief and Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig, filed by Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc. and Tobias Reynaldo M. Tianco; (d) Civil Case No. 556-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, filed by AGP Fishing Ventures, Inc.; (e) Civil Case No. 522-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, filed by Blue Lagoon and Alcris Chicken Growers, Inc.; (f) Civil Case No. 554-, for Certiorari and Prohibition, Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Morong, Rizal, filed by Greenfields Ventures Industrial Corp. and R.J. Orion Development Corp.; and (g) Civil Case No. 64124, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Pasig, filed by SEA-MAR Trading Co., Inc. and Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corp. and Minamar Fishing Corporation. The Authority filed motions to dismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The motions to dismiss were invariably denied. Meanwhile, temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction were issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64124, 759 and 566 enjoining the Authority from demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question. Hence, the herein petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, were filed by the Authority with this court. Impleaded as parties-respondents are concerned regional trial courts and respective private parties, and the municipalities and/or respective Mayors of Binangonan, Taguig and Jala-jala, who issued permits for the construction and operation of fishpens in Laguna de Bay. The Authority sought the following reliefs, viz.: (A) Nullification of the temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64125, 759 and 566; (B) Permanent prohibition against the regional trial courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving the Authority which is a co-equal body; (C) Judicial pronouncement that R.A. 7610 (Local Government Code of 1991) did not repeal, alter or modify the provisions of R.A. 4850, as amended, empowering the Authority to issue permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay and that, the Authority the government agency vested with exclusive authority to issue said permits. By this Court's resolution of May 2, 1994, the Authority's consolidated petitions were referred to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision, dated June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Authority's consolidated petitions, the Court of Appeals holding that: (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of government whose decision or order are appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the power to grant permits devolved to and is now vested with their respective local government units concerned.

Not satisfied with the Court of Appeals decision, the Authority has returned to this Court charging the following errors: 1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PROBABLY COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY. 2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT R.A. 4850 AS AMENDED BY P.D. 813 AND E.O. 927 SERIES OF 1983 HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7160. THE SAID RULING IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENCE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE FISHPEN PERMITS IN LAGUNA DE BAY HAS BEEN DEVOLVED TO CONCERNED (LAKESHORE) LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. We take a simplistic view of the controversy. Actually, the main and only issue posed is: Which agency of the Government the Laguna Lake Development Authority or the towns and municipalities comprising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? Section 4 (k) of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 813, and Section 2 of Executive Order No. 927, cited above, specifically provide that the Laguna Lake Development Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region, including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. The Sangguniang Bayan may grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of the municipal waters. We hold that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that

"a special statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law." 3 Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. 4 Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991. Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which are environmental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is every indication that the legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission. We are on all fours with the manifestation of petitioner Laguna Lake Development Authority that "Laguna de Bay, like any other single body of water has its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900 km lake surface water, the eight (8) major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain into the lake, the 2,920 km basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Laguna and Rizal provinces, greater portion of Metro Manila, parts of Cavite, Batangas, and Quezon provinces, constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem that needs to be protected with uniform set of policies; if we are to be serious in our aims of attaining sustainable development. This is an exhaustible natural resource a very limited one which requires judicious management and optimal utilization to ensure renewability and preserve its ecological integrity and balance." "Managing the lake resources would mean the implementation of a national policy geared towards the protection, conservation, balanced growth and sustainable development of the region with due regard to the inter-generational use of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The authors of Republic Act 4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law the special law designed to govern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources." "Laguna de Bay therefore cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the lake water. The garbage thrown or sewage discharged into the lake, abstraction of water therefrom or construction of fishpens by enclosing its certain area, affect not only that specific portion but the entire 900 km of lake water. The implementation of a cohesive and integrated lake water resource management policy, therefore, is necessary to conserve, protect and sustainably develop Laguna de Bay." 5

The power of the local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue purposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 of the New Local Government Code empowering local governments to issue fishing permits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II, of Republic Act No. 7160 under the heading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And Other Revenue Raising Power Of Local Government Units." On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region (Section 2, Executive Order No. 927) and for lake quality control and management. 6 It does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of all State powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly, the charter of the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 927 provides for the proper sharing of fees collected. In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agency or not, it is our holding that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850 and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court in Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 304, 306, which we quote: xxx xxx xxx As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for another forum. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant of power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region. xxx xxx xxx

. . . . While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency. there is no question that the Authority has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body in respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a "cease and desist order" and on matters affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay. The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional Trial Courts such that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court of Appeals cannot be sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions affecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it. Removal from the Authority of the aforesaid licensing authority will render nugatory its avowed purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake Region. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of this power would render useless its reason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the Laguna Lake Development Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had never intended to do. WHEREFORE, the petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted, insofar as they relate to the authority of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to grant fishing privileges within the Laguna Lake Region. The restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued by Judge Arturo Marave, RTC, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal; Judge Herculano Tech, RTC, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal; and Judge Aurelio Trampe, RTC, Branch 163, Pasig, Metro Manila, are hereby declared null and void and ordered set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from issuing permits to construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures within the Laguna Lake Region, their previous issuances being declared null and void. Thus, the fishing permits issued by Mayors Isidro B. Pacis, Municipality of Binangonan; Ricardo D. Papa, Municipality of Taguig; and Walfredo M. de la Vega, Municipality of Jala-jala, specifically, are likewise declared null and void and ordered cancelled.

The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put up by operators by virtue of permits issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region, specifically, permits issued to Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc., represented by, Mr. Tobias Reynald M. Tiangco; Greenfield Ventures Industrial Development Corporation and R.J. Orion Development Corporation; IRMA Fishing And Trading Corporation, ARTM Fishing Corporation, BDR Corporation, Mirt Corporation and Trim Corporation; Blue Lagoon Fishing Corporation and ALCRIS Chicken Growers, Inc.; AGP Fish Ventures, Inc., represented by its President Alfonso Puyat; SEA MAR Trading Co., Inc., Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corporation, and MINAMAR Fishing Corporation, are hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the Laguna Lake Development Authority. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring: I fully concur with the decision written by Mr. Justice R. Hermosisima, Jr.. I would only like to stress what the decision already states, i.e., that the local government units in the Laguna Lake area are not precluded from imposing permits on fishery operations for revenue raising purposes of such local government units. In other words, while the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not projects or activities in the lake area should be allowed, as well as their regulation, is with the Laguna Lake Development Authority, once the Authority grants a permit, the permittee may still be subjected to an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes of the local government units concerned. This approach would clearly harmonize the special law, Rep. Act No. 4850, as amended, with Rep. Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code. It will also enable small towns and municipalities in the lake area, like Jala-Jala, to rise to some level of economic viability. Separate Opinions PADILLA, J., concurring: I fully concur with the decision written by Mr. Justice R. Hermosisima, Jr.. I would only like to stress what the decision already states, i.e., that the local government units in the Laguna Lake area are not precluded from imposing permits on fishery operations for revenue raising purposes

of such local government units. In other words, while the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not projects or activities in the lake area should be allowed, as well as their regulation, is with the Laguna Lake Development Authority, once the Authority grants a permit, the permittee may still be subjected to an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes of the local government units concerned. This approach would clearly harmonize the special law, Rep. Act No. 4850, as amended, with Rep. Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code. It will also enable small towns and municipalities in the lake area, like Jala-Jala, to rise to some level of economic viability. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, CITY TREASURER OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA and THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO V. REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Pablo City and the MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This is a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to review on a pure question of law the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 29 in Civil Case No. SP4359(96), entitled "Manila Electric Company vs. City of San Pablo, Laguna, City Treasurer of San Pablo Laguna, and the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Pablo City, Laguna." The RTC declared the imposition of a franchise tax under Section 2.09 Article D of Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo as ineffective and void insofar as the respondent MERALCO is concerned for being violative of Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and PD 551. The RTC also granted MERALCO'S claim for refund of franchise taxes paid under protest. The following antecedent facts are undisputed: Act No. 3648 granted the Escudero Electric Service Company a legislative franchise to maintain and operate an electric light and power system in the City of San Pablo and nearby municipalities. Section 10 of Act No. 3648 provides:

. . . In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay unto the municipal treasury of each municipality in which it is supplying electric current to the public under this franchise, a tax equal to two percentum of the gross earnings from electric current sold or supplied under this franchise in each said municipality. Said tax shall be due and payable quarterly and shall be in lieu of any and all taxes of any kind nature or description levied, established or collected by any authority whatsoever, municipal, provincial or insular, now or in the future, on its poles, wires, insulator, switches, transformers, and structures, installations, conductors, and accessories placed in and over and under all public property, including public streets and highways, provincial roads, bridges and public squares, and on its franchise, rights. privileges, receipts, revenues and profits from which taxes the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. Escudero's franchise was transferred to the plaintiff (herein respondent) MERALCO under Republic Act No. 2340. Presidential Decree No. 551 was enacted on September 11, 1974. Section 1 thereof provides the following: Sec. 1. Any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchise to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light, heat and power shall be two percent (2%) of their gross receipts received from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current. Such franchise tax shall be payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of his duly authorized representative on or before the twentieth day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter or month as may be provided in the respective franchise or pertinent municipal regulation and shall, any provision of the Local Tax Code or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on earnings, receipts, income and privilege of generation, distribution and sale of electric current. Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991" (hereinafter referred to as LGC) took effect on January 1, 1992. The said Code authorizes the province/city to impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year realized within its jurisdiction. On October 5, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Pablo City enacted Ordinance No. 56, otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo. The said Ordinance took effect on October 30, 1992. 1 Sec. 2.09, Article D of said Ordinance provides: Sec. 2.09. Franchise Tax There is hereby imposed a tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the cross annual receipts, which shall include both cash sales and sales on account realized during the preceding calendar year within the city.

Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 2.09, the petitioner City Treasurer sent to private respondent a letter demanding payment of the aforesaid franchise tax. From 1994 to 1996, private respondent paid "under protest" a total amount of P1,857,711.67. 2 The private respondent subsequently filed this action before the Regional Trial Court to declare Ordinance No. 56 null and void insofar as it imposes the franchise tax upon private respondent MERALCO 3 and to claim for a refund of the taxes paid. The Court ruled in favor of MERALCO and upheld its argument that the LGC did not expressly or impliedly repeal the tax exemption/incentive enjoyed by it under its charter The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the imposition of a franchise tax under Sec. 2.09, Article D of Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo, is declared ineffective and null and void insofar as the plaintiff MERALCO is concerned for being of Republic Act. No. 2340, PD 551, and Republic Act No. 7160 and defendants are ordered to refund to the plaintiff the amount of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN & 67/100 (P1,857,711.67) and such other amounts as may have been paid by the plaintiff under said Revenue Ordinance No. 56 after the filling of the complaint. 4 SO ORDERED. Its motion for records for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court. 5 the petitioners filed the instant petition with this Court raising pure question of law based on the following grounds: I. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACT NO. 3648, REPUBLIC ACT NO 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551, AS AMENDED, INSOFAR AS THEY GRANT TAX INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT, HAVE NOT BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160. II. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT SECTION 193 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 HAS NOT WITHDRAWN THE TAX INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES BEING ENJOYED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT UNDER ACT NO. 3648 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551 AS AMENDED. III. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FRANCHISE TAX IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT. Petitioners' position is that RA 7160 (LGC) expressly repealed Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and Presidential Decree 551 and that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, the province or city now has the power to impose a franchise tax on a business enjoying a franchise. Petitioners rely on the ruling in the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos 6 where the Supreme Court held that the exemption from real

property tax granted to Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority under its charter has been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC. In addition, the petitioners cite in their Memorandum dated December 8, 1993 an administrative interpretation made by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance in its 3rd indorsement dated February 15, 1994 to the effect that the earlier ruling of the Department of Finance that holders of franchise which contain the phrase "in lieu of all taxes" proviso are exempt from the payment of any kind of tax is no longer applicable upon the effectivity of the LGC in view of the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges as provided in Sections 193 and 234 thereof. We resolve to reverse the court a quo. The pivotal issue is whether the City of San Pablo may impose a local franchise tax pursuant to the LGC upon the Manila Electric Company which pays a tax equal to two percent of its gross receipts in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on savings or income. It is necessary to reproduce the pertinent provisions of the LGC. Sec. 137 Franchise Tax Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent 50% of one percent 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipts, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. . . . Sec. 151 Scope of Taxing Powers Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the city, may levy the taxes, fees, and charges which the province or municipality may impose: Provided, however, That the taxes, fees and charges levied and collected by highly urbanized and independent component cities shall accrue to them and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The rates of taxes that the city may levy may exceed the maximum rates allowed for the province or municipality by not more than fifty percent (50%) except the rates of professional and amusement taxes. Sec. 193 Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non- stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. Sec. 534 (f) Repealing Clause All general and special law, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamation and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 534 (f), the repealing clause of the LGC, provides that all general and special laws, act, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. This clause partakes of the nature of a general repealing clause. 7 It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to designate the specific act or acts identified by number or title, that are intended to be repealed. 8 Was there an implied repeal by Republic Act No. 7160 of the MERALCO franchise insofar as the latter imposes a 2% tax "in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature"? We rule affirmatively. We are mindful of the established rule that repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject. A general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law by mere implication unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest 9 and it must be convincingly demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. 10 It is our view that petitions correctly rely on the provisions of Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC to support their position that MERALCO`s tax exemption has been withdrawn. The explicit language of Section 137 which authorizes the province to impose franchise tax "notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law" is all-encompassing and clear. The franchise tax is imposable despite any exemption enjoyed under special laws. Sec. 193 buttresses the withdrawal of extant tax exemption privileges. By stating that unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by all persons whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations except 1) local water districts, 2) cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, (3) non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are withdrawn upon the effectivity of this code, the obvious import is to limit the exemptions to the three enumerated entities. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio untus est exclusio alterius. 11 In the absence of any provision of the Code to the contrary, and we find no other provision in point, any existing tax exemption or incentive enjoyed by MERALCO under existing law was clearly intended to be withdrawn. Reading together Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, we conclude that under the LGC the local government unit may now impose a local tax at a rate not exceeding 50% of 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipts realized within its territorial jurisdiction. The legislative purpose to withdraw tax privileges enjoy under existing law or charter is clearly manifested by the language used in Sections 137 end 193 categorically withdrawing such exemption subject only to the exceptions enumerated. Since it would be not only tedious and impractical to attempt to enumerate all the existing statutes providing for

special tax exemptions or privileges, the LGC provided for an express, albeit general, withdrawal of such exemptions or privileges. No more unequivocal language could have been used. It is true that the phrase "in lieu of all taxes" found in special franchises has been held in several cases to exempt the franchise holder from payment of tax on its corporate franchise imposed of the Internal Revenue Code, as the charter is in the nature of a private contract and the exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise, and that the imposition of another franchise tax by the local authority would constitute an impairment of contract between the government and the corporation. 12 But these "magic words" contained in the phrase "shall be in lieu of all taxes'' 13 have to give way to the peremptory language of the LGC specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemption privileges. Accordingly in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos. 14 this Court held that Section 193 of the LGC prescribes the general rule, viz., the tax exemption or incentives, granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical persons are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC except with respect to those entities expressly enumerated. In the same vein, We must hold that the express withdrawal upon effectivity of the LGC of all exemptions except only as provided therein, can no longer be invoked by Meralco to disclaim liability for the local tax. Private respondents further argue that the "in lieu of" provision contained in PD 551, Act. No. 3648 and RA 2340 does not partake of the nature of an exemption, but is a "commutative tax". This contention was raised but was not upheld in Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 15 wherein the Supreme Court stated: . . . Congress could impair petitioner's legislative franchise by making it liable for income tax from which heretofore it was exempted by virtue of the exemption provided for in section 3 of its franchise . . . . . . Republic Act No. 5431, in amending section 24 of the Tax Code by subjecting to income tax all corporate tax payers not expressly exempted therein and in section 27 of the Code, had the effect of withdrawing petitioner's exemption from income tax . . . Private respondent's invocation of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution is accordingly unavailing. The LGC was enacted in pursuance of the constitutional policy to ensure autonomy to local governments 16 and to enable them to attain fullest development as self-reliant communities. 17 Thus in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, supra, this Court pointed out, in upholding the withdrawal of the real estate tax exemption previously enjoyed by the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, as follows: Note that as reproduced in Section 234 (a) the phrase ''and any government-owned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter" was excluded. The justification for this restricted exemption in Section 234(a) seems obvious: to limit further tax exemption privileges, especially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges in Section 193 and the special provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy considerations are consistent with the State policy to

ensure autonomy to local governments and the objective of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. It may also be relevant to recall that the original reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted to government-owned or controlled corporations and all other units of government were that such privilege resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there was a need for these entities to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them. 18 The Court therein concluded that: nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even instrumentalities or agencies of the Government performing governmental functions may be subject to tax. Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate and national policy, no one can doubt its wisdom. 19 The power to tax is primarily vested in Congress. However, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. 20 Thus Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution reads: Sec. 5 Each Local Government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the Local Governments. The important legal effect of Section 5 is that henceforth, in interpreting statutory provision on municipal fiscal powers, doubts will have to resolved in favor of municipal corporations. 21 There is further basis for tire conclusion that the non-impairment of contract clause cannot be invoked to uphold Meralco's exemption from the local tax. Escudero Electric Co. was originally given the legislative franchise under Act. 3648 to operate an electric light and power system in the City of San Pablo and nearby municipalities. The term of the franchise under Act. No. 3648 is a period of fifty years from the Act's approval in 1929. The said law provided that the franchise is granted upon the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, or repeal by the Congress of the United States. 22 Under the 1935. 23 the 1973 24 and the 1987 25 Constitutions, no franchise or right shall be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires. With or without the reservation clause, franchises are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power; they are also subject to alteration by the power to tax, which like police power cannot be contracted away. 26

Finally, while the matter is not of controlling significance, the Court notes that whereas the original Escudero franchise exempted the franchise holder from all taxes levied or collected "now or in the future" 27 this phrase is noticeably omitted in the counterpart provision of P.D. 551; that said omission is intended not to foreclose future taxes may reasonably be deduced by statutory construction. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and the complaint of MERALCO is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23305 June 30, 1966

BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN, doing business under the firm name and style "MARCO TRANSIT", petitioner, vs. CITY OF MANILA, its officers and/or agents, respondents. David G. Nitafan for petitioner. Antonio J. Villegas for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman originally filed, on 6 August 1964, with this Court a petition for declaratory relief seeking a declaration of his rights under the so-called "provincial bus ban" ordinance (No. 4986, approved on 13 July 1964 by the City Mayor) of respondent City of Manila, with prayer for writs of preliminary and permanent injunctions to restrain and enjoin said respondent, its officers and/or agents, from enforcing and implementing said ordinance. At first, this Court, in its resolution dated 11 August 1964, dismissed said petition without prejudice to action, if any, in the lower court; but, upon herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration and supplemental petition to convert said petition into one for prohibition, on the ground, among others, that respondents have been actually enforcing said ordinance effective 17 August 1964, this Court reconsidered its first resolution, gave due course to the petition and required respondents to answer. This Court did not, however, issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

As disclosed by the record, the facts are: Petitioner was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission (by a decision, dated 20 March 1963, in PSC Case No. 61-7383) to operate for public service fifteen (15) auto trucks with fixed routes and regular terminal for the transportation of passengers and freight, on the line Bocaue (Bulacan) Paraaque (Rizal) via Meycauayan, Marilao, Obando, Polo, Malabon, Rizal, Grace Park, Rizal Avenue, Recto Avenue, Sta. Cruz Bridge, Taft Avenue, Libertad, Pasay City and Baclaran, and vice versa. Within Manila, the line passes thru Rizal Avenue, Plaza Goiti, McArthur Bridge, Plaza Lawton, P. Burgos, Taft Avenue and Taft Avenue Extension. Pursuant to said certificate, petitioner, who is doing business under the firm name and style of "Marco Transit", began operating twelve (12) passenger buses along his authorized line. On 17 June 1964, the Municipal Board of respondent City of Manila, in pursuance to Section 18, paragraph hh, of Republic Act No. 409, as amended (otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila), that reads: The Municipal board shall have the following legislative powers: xxx xxx xxx

(hh) To establish and regulate the size, speed, and operation of motor and other public vehicles within the city; to establish bus stops and terminals; and prohibit and regulate the entrance of provincial utility vehicles into the city, except those passing thru the city." xxx xxx xxx

enacted Ordinance No. 4986, entitled "An Ordinance Rerouting Traffic On Roads and Streets Within The City of Manila, and For Other Purposes", which the City Mayor approved, on 13 July 1964, effective upon approval thereof. The pertinent provisions of said ordinance, insofar as it affect the certificate of public convenience of petitioner, are quoted below, to wit: SECTION 1. As a positive measure to relieve the critical traffic congestion in the City of Manila, which has grown to alarming and emergency proportions, and in the best interest of public welfare and convenience, the following traffic rules and regulations are hereby Promulgated: RULE 1. DEFINITIONS A. Definition of Terms. When used in this ordinance and in subsequent ordinance having reference thereto, unless the context indicates otherwise: (a) The terms "provincial passenger buses" and provincial passenger jeepneys' shall be understood to mean those whose route (or origin-destination) lines come from or going to points beyond Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Quezon City, Caloocan City and Navotas.

xxx

xxx

xxx

RULE II. ENTRY POINTS AND ROUTES OF PROVINCIAL PASSENGER BUSES AND JEEPNEYS 1. Provincial passenger buses and jeepneys (PUB and PUJ) shall be allowed to enter Manila, but only through the following entry points and routes, from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. every day except Sundays and Holidays: (a) Those coming from the north shall enter the city through Rizal Avenue; turn right to Mt. Samat; right to Dinalupihan right to J. Abad Santos; left to Rizal Avenue towards Caloocan City; xxx xxx xxx

(n) Those coming from the south through Taft Avenue shall turn left at Vito Cruz; turn right to Dakota; turn right to Harrison Boulevard; turn right to Taft Avenue; thence proceed towards Pasay City; xxx xxx xxx

RULE III. FLEXIBLE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE 1. In order that provincial commuters shall not be unduly inconvenienced as a result of the implementation of these essential traffic control regulations, operators of provincial passenger buses shall be allowed to provide buses to shuttle their passengers from their respective entry control points, under the following conditions: (a) Each provincial bus company or firm Shall be allowed such number of shuttle buses proportionate to the number of units authorized it, the ratio to be determined by the Chief, Traffic Control Bureau, based on his observations as to the actual needs of commuters and traffic volume; in no case shall the allocation be more than one shuttle bus for every 10 authorized units, or fraction thereof. (b) No shuttle bus shall enter Manila unless the same shall have been provided with identification stickers as required under Rule IV hereof, which shall be furnished and allocated by the Chief, Traffic Control Bureau to each provincial bus company or firm.1wph1.t (c) All such shuttle buses are not permitted to load or unload or to pick and/or drop passengers along the way but must do so only in the following places: (1) North (a) J. Abad Santos corner Rizal Avenue, or vicinities

xxx (3) South

xxx

xxx

(a) Harrison Boulevard, between Dakota and Taft Avenue xxx GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 4. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance and of any other ordinance regulating traffic in the city, shall be punished by a fine of not less than P20.00, nor more than P200.00, or by imprisonment for not less than five (5) days nor more than six (6) months, or both such fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court. On 17 August 1964, the Mayor of respondent City of Manila, through its police agencies, began actual enforcement of said ordinance and prevented petitioner from operating his buses, except two (2) "Shuttle" buses, along the line specified in his certificate of public convenience. Petitioner Lagman claims in his original and supplemental petitions that the enactment and enforcement of Ordinance No. 4986 is unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, and null and void. Thus, he contends that the routes within Manila through which he has been authorized to operate his buses are national roads or streets, and the regulation and control relating to the use of and traffic of which (roads) are vested, under Commonwealth Act No. 548, in the Director of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications; but, since said ordinance was not proposed nor approved by the executive officials mentioned in said Act, its enactment and enforcement is a usurpation of the latter officials' functions, and said ordinance is, therefore, unauthorized and illegal. He also contends that the power conferred upon respondent City of Manila, under said Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, does not include the right to enact an ordinance such as the one in question, which has the effect of amending or modifying a certificate of public convenience granted by the Public Service Commission because any amendment or modification of said certificate is solely vested by law in the latter governmental agency, and only after notice and hearing (Sec. 16[m], Public Service Act); but since this procedure was not adopted or followed by respondents in enacting the disputed ordinance, the same is likewise illegal and null and void. He further contends that the enforcement of said ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable because the city streets from which he had been prevented to operate his buses are the cream of his business. He finally contends that, even assuming that Ordinance No. 4986 is valid, it is only the Public Service Commission which can require compliance with its provisions (Sec. 17[j], Public Service Act), but since its implementation is without the sanction or approval of the Commission, its enforcement is also unauthorized and illegal. xxx xxx

In his memorandum, petitioner adds as contention therefor that although his buses fall within the definition of the term "provincial passenger buses" under the disputed ordinance his route line having terminal outside the City of Manila and its immediate suburbs they merely "pass thru the city"; hence, its operation is covered within the saving clause of the above-quoted Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, and he should not have been prevented from operating his buses within the city streets specified in his certificate of public convenience. On the other hand, respondent City of Manila, in its answer to the original and supplemental petitions, maintains that its power to "prohibit and regulate the entrance of provincial public utility vehicles into the City, except those passing thru the City", as provided in its charter, is an explicit delegation of police power which is paramount and superior both with respect to the administrative power of the Director of Public Works, under Commonwealth Act No. 548, to regulate and control the use of, and traffic on, national roads or streets and to the administrative authority of the Public Service Commission, under Section 16 (m), of the Public Service Act, to amend, modify or revoke certificates of public convenience. It also maintains that the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 have been repealed by Section 27 of Republic Act No. 917; and, even assuming that the former has not been so repealed by the latter, Ordinance No. 4968 does not contravene Commonwealth Act No. 548 because, even assuming that a repugnancy or conflict exists between this Act and Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, the latter provisions prevails over the former. Republic Act No. 409 being a special law and of later enactment. Neither does Republic Act No. 409 contravene Section 16 (m) of the Public Service Act, Section 17(j) of the latter Act having imposed a duty in the Public Service Commission to require any public service to comply with any ordinance relating thereto. Lastly, respondent, in its reply memorandum, maintains that since petitioner admittedly engages in business within the city limits by picking up passengers therein, his buses do not merely pass thru the city; and they are not, therefore, covered within the saving clause of Section 18 (hh), of Republic Act No. 409, as amended. In our opinion, the present petition for prohibition should be denied. First, as correctly maintained by respondents, Republic Act No. 409, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, is a special law and of later enactment than Commonwealth Act No. 548 and the Public Service Law (Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended), so that even if conflict exists between the provisions of the former act and the latter acts, Republic Act No. 409 should prevail over both Commonwealth Acts Nos. 548 and 146. In Cassion vs. Banco Nacional Filipino, 89 Phil. 560, 561, this Court said: for with or without an express enactment it is a familiar rule of statutory construction that to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between a general and a special law or provision, the latter will control the former without regard to the respective dates of passage.

It is to be noted that Commonwealth Act No. 548 does not confer an exclusive power or authority upon the Director of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the use of and traffic on national roads or streets. This being the case, section 18 (hh) of the Manila Charter is deemed enacted as an exception to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548. It is a well settled principle that, because repeals by implication are not favored, a special law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general law, in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. (Baga vs. Philippine National Bank, 52 O.G. 6140). Where a special act is repugnant to or inconsistent with a prior general act, a partial repeal of the latter act will be implied or exception grafted upon the general act. (City of Geneses vs. Illinois Northern Utility Co., 39 NE 2d, p. 26) Second, the same situation holds true with respect to the provisions of the Public Service Act. Although the Public Service Commission is empowered, under its Section 16 (m), to amend, modify or revoke certificates of public convenience after notice and hearing, yet there is no provision, specific or otherwise, which can be found in this statute (Commonwealth Act No. 146) vesting power in the Public Service Commission to superintend, regulate, or control the streets of respondent City or suspend its power to license or prohibit the occupancy thereof. On the other hand, this right or authority, as hereinabove concluded, is conferred upon respondent City of Manila. The power vested in the Public Service Commission under Section 16 (m) is, therefore, subordinate to the authority granted to respondent City, under said section 18 (hh). As held in an American case: Ordinances designating the streets within a municipality upon which buses may operate, or prohibiting their operation in certain streets do not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission over motorbus common carriers, so long as the ordinances do not prevent or unreasonably interfere with the utility's operation under the certificate or franchise granted by that Commission. (Stuck vs. Town of Beech Grove, 163 N.E. 483; 166 N.E. 153). That the powers conferred by law upon the Public Service Commission were not designed to deny or supersede the regulatory power of local governments over motor traffic, in the streets subject to their control, is made evident by section 17 (j) of the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) that provides as follows: SEC. 17. Proceedings of Commission without previous hearing. The Commission shall have power, without previous hearing, subject to established limitations and exceptions, and saving provisions to the contrary: xxx xxx xxx

(j) To require any public service to comply with the laws of the Philippines, and with any provincial resolution or municipal ordinance relating thereto, and to

conform to the duties imposed upon it thereby, or by the provisions of its own charter, whether obtained under any general or special law of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner's contention that, under this section, the respective ordinances of the City can only be enforced by the Commission alone is obviously unsound. Subsection (j) refers not only to ordinances but also to "the laws of the Philippines", and it is plainly absurd to assume that even laws relating to public services are to remain a dead letter without the placet of the Commission; and the section makes no distinction whatever between enforcement of laws and that of municipal ordinances. The very fact, furthermore, that the Commission is empowered, but not required, to demand compliance with apposite laws and ordinances proves that the Commission's powers are merely supplementary to those of state organs, such as the police, upon which the enforcement of laws primarily rests. Third, the implementation of the ordinance in question cannot be validly assailed as arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate this charge, it is not disputed that petitioner has not been totally banned or prohibited from operating all his buses, he having allowed to operate two (2) "shuttle" buses within the city limits. And finally, respondents correctly maintain that petitioner cannot avail of the saving clause of said section 18 (hh), he having admitted that his buses engaged in business within the city limits by picking up passengers therein; hence, they do not merely "pass thru the city". Wherefore, the instant petition for prohibition should be as it is hereby, dismissed. With cost against petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman. Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994 MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, petitioners, vs.

PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents. Aquilino G. Pimentel, Jr. and Associates for petitioners. R.R. Torralba & Associates for private respondent.

CRUZ, J.: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. The religious elements echoed the objection and so did the women's groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators. The media trumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city. The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with its tremendous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season. The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353 reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3353 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMIT AND CANCELLING EXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT TO ANY ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE USING AND ALLOWING TO BE USED ITS PREMISES OR PORTION THEREOF FOR THE OPERATION OF CASINO. BE IT ORDAINED by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro, in session assembled that: Sec. 1. That pursuant to the policy of the city banning the operation of casino within its territorial jurisdiction, no business permit shall be issued to any person, partnership or corporation for the operation of casino within the city limits. Sec. 2. That it shall be a violation of existing business permit by any persons, partnership or corporation to use its business establishment or portion thereof, or allow the use thereof by others for casino operation and other gambling activities. Sec. 3. PENALTIES. Any violation of such existing business permit as defined in the preceding section shall suffer the following penalties, to wit:

a) Suspension of the business permit for sixty (60) days for the first offense and a fine of P1,000.00/day b) Suspension of the business permit for Six (6) months for the second offense, and a fine of P3,000.00/day c) Permanent revocation of the business permit and imprisonment of One (1) year, for the third and subsequent offenses. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from publication thereof. Nor was this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93 reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CASINO AND PROVIDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREFOR. WHEREAS, the City Council established a policy as early as 1990 against CASINO under its Resolution No. 2295; WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the City Council passed another Resolution No. 2673, reiterating its policy against the establishment of CASINO; WHEREAS, subsequently, thereafter, it likewise passed Ordinance No. 3353, prohibiting the issuance of Business Permit and to cancel existing Business Permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be used its premises or portion thereof for the operation of CASINO; WHEREAS, under Art. 3, section 458, No. (4), sub paragraph VI of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Rep. Act 7160) and under Art. 99, No. (4), Paragraph VI of the implementing rules of the Local Government Code, the City Council as the Legislative Body shall enact measure to suppress any activity inimical to public morals and general welfare of the people and/or regulate or prohibit such activity pertaining to amusement or entertainment in order to protect social and moral welfare of the community; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council in session duly assembled that: Sec. 1. The operation of gambling CASINO in the City of Cagayan de Oro is hereby prohibited. Sec. 2. Any violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to the following penalties:

a) Administrative fine of P5,000.00 shall be imposed against the proprietor, partnership or corporation undertaking the operation, conduct, maintenance of gambling CASINO in the City and closure thereof; b) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year or a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 or both at the discretion of the court against the manager, supervisor, and/or any person responsible in the establishment, conduct and maintenance of gambling CASINO. Sec. 3. This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its publication in a local newspaper of general circulation. Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On March 31, 1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement. 1 Reconsideration of this decision was denied on July 13, 1993. 2 Cagayan de Oro City and its mayor are now before us in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 3 They aver that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that: 1. Under existing laws, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro does not have the power and authority to prohibit the establishment and operation of a PAGCOR gambling casino within the City's territorial limits. 2. The phrase "gambling and other prohibited games of chance" found in Sec. 458, par. (a), subpar. (1) (v) of R.A. 7160 could only mean "illegal gambling." 3. The questioned Ordinances in effect annul P.D. 1869 and are therefore invalid on that point. 4. The questioned Ordinances are discriminatory to casino and partial to cockfighting and are therefore invalid on that point. 5. The questioned Ordinances are not reasonable, not consonant with the general powers and purposes of the instrumentality concerned and inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State. 6. It had no option but to follow the ruling in the case of Basco, et al. v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991, 197 SCRA 53 in disposing of the issues presented in this present case. PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. In Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, 4 this Court sustained the constitutionality of the decree and even cited the benefits of the entity to the national economy as the third highest revenue-earner in the government, next only to the BIR and the Bureau of Customs. Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly vested with the police

power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now embodied in Section 16 as follows: Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. In addition, Section 458 of the said Code specifically declares that: Sec. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The Sangguniang Panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall: (1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government, and in this connection, shall: xxx xxx xxx (v) Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill repute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction, maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibition of obscene or pornographic materials or publications, and such other activities inimical to the welfare and morals of the inhabitants of the city; This section also authorizes the local government units to regulate properties and businesses within their territorial limits in the interest of the general welfare. 5 The petitioners argue that by virtue of these provisions, the Sangguniang Panlungsod may prohibit the operation of casinos because they involve games of chance, which are detrimental to the people. Gambling is not allowed by general law and even by the Constitution itself. The legislative power conferred upon local government units may be exercised over all kinds of gambling and not only over "illegal gambling" as the respondents erroneously argue. Even if the operation of casinos may have been permitted under P.D. 1869, the government of Cagayan de Oro City has the authority to prohibit them within its territory pursuant to the authority entrusted to it by the Local Government Code.

It is submitted that this interpretation is consonant with the policy of local autonomy as mandated in Article II, Section 25, and Article X of the Constitution, as well as various other provisions therein seeking to strengthen the character of the nation. In giving the local government units the power to prevent or suppress gambling and other social problems, the Local Government Code has recognized the competence of such communities to determine and adopt the measures best expected to promote the general welfare of their inhabitants in line with the policies of the State. The petitioners also stress that when the Code expressly authorized the local government units to prevent and suppress gambling and other prohibited games of chance, like craps, baccarat, blackjack and roulette, it meant all forms of gambling without distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos. 6 Otherwise, it would have expressly excluded from the scope of their power casinos and other forms of gambling authorized by special law, as it could have easily done. The fact that it did not do so simply means that the local government units are permitted to prohibit all kinds of gambling within their territories, including the operation of casinos. The adoption of the Local Government Code, it is pointed out, had the effect of modifying the charter of the PAGCOR. The Code is not only a later enactment than P.D. 1869 and so is deemed to prevail in case of inconsistencies between them. More than this, the powers of the PAGCOR under the decree are expressly discontinued by the Code insofar as they do not conform to its philosophy and provisions, pursuant to Par. (f) of its repealing clause reading as follows: (f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. It is also maintained that assuming there is doubt regarding the effect of the Local Government Code on P.D. 1869, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the petitioners, in accordance with the direction in the Code calling for its liberal interpretation in favor of the local government units. Section 5 of the Code specifically provides: Sec. 5. Rules of Interpretation. In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the following rules shall apply: (a) Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned; xxx xxx xxx (c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community; . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

Finally, the petitioners also attack gambling as intrinsically harmful and cite various provisions of the Constitution and several decisions of this Court expressive of the general and official disapprobation of the vice. They invoke the State policies on the family and the proper upbringing of the youth and, as might be expected, call attention to the old case of U.S. v. Salaveria, 7 which sustained a municipal ordinance prohibiting the playing of panguingue. The petitioners decry the immorality of gambling. They also impugn the wisdom of P.D. 1869 (which they describe as "a martial law instrument") in creating PAGCOR and authorizing it to operate casinos "on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines." This is the opportune time to stress an important point. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse. Well has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. 8 That is the prerogative of the political departments. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicibility of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme of government. That function is exclusive. Whichever way these branches decide, they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately judge their acts, and not to the courts of justice. The only question we can and shall resolve in this petition is the validity of Ordinance No. 3355 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 as enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City. And we shall do so only by the criteria laid down by law and not by our own convictions on the propriety of gambling. The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions 9 has held that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements: 1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute. 2) It must not be unfair or oppressive. 3) It must not be partial or discriminatory. 4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade. 5) It must be general and consistent with public policy. 6) It must not be unreasonable.

We begin by observing that under Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among others, "gambling and other prohibited games of chance." Obviously, this provision excludes games of chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law. The petitioners are less than accurate in claiming that the Code could have excluded such games of chance but did not. In fact it does. The language of the section is clear and unmistakable. Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or phrase should be interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words with which it is associated. Accordingly, we conclude that since the word "gambling" is associated with "and other prohibited games of chance," the word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which, like the other prohibited games of chance, must be prevented or suppressed. We could stop here as this interpretation should settle the problem quite conclusively. But we will not. The vigorous efforts of the petitioners on behalf of the inhabitants of Cagayan de Oro City, and the earnestness of their advocacy, deserve more than short shrift from this Court. The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. The petitioners have an ingenious answer to this misgiving. They deny that it is the ordinances that have changed P.D. 1869 for an ordinance admittedly cannot prevail against a statute. Their theory is that the change has been made by the Local Government Code itself, which was also enacted by the national lawmaking authority. In their view, the decree has been, not really repealed by the Code, but merely "modified pro tanto" in the sense that PAGCOR cannot now operate a casino over the objection of the local government unit concerned. This modification of P.D. 1869 by the Local Government Code is permissible because one law can change or repeal another law. It seems to us that the petitioners are playing with words. While insisting that the decree has only been "modified pro tanto," they are actually arguing that it is already dead, repealed and useless for all intents and purposes because the Code has shorn PAGCOR of all power to centralize and regulate casinos. Strictly speaking, its operations may now be not only prohibited by the local government unit; in fact, the prohibition is not only discretionary but mandated by Section 458 of the Code if the word "shall" as used therein is to be given its accepted meaning. Local government units have now no choice but to prevent and suppress gambling, which in the petitioners' view includes both legal and illegal gambling. Under this construction, PAGCOR will have no more games of chance to regulate or centralize as they must all be prohibited by the local government units pursuant to the mandatory duty imposed upon them by the Code. In this situation, PAGCOR cannot continue to exist except only as a toothless tiger or a white elephant and will no longer be able to exercise its powers as a prime source of government revenue through the operation of casinos. It is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited only Par. (f) of the repealing clause, conveniently discarding the rest of the provision which painstakingly mentions the specific laws or the parts thereof which are repealed (or modified) by the Code. Significantly, P.D. 1869 is not one of them. A reading of the entire repealing clause, which is reproduced below, will disclose the omission:

Sec. 534. Repealing Clause. (a) Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code," Executive Order No. 112 (1987), and Executive Order No. 319 (1988) are hereby repealed. (b) Presidential Decree Nos. 684, 1191, 1508 and such other decrees, orders, instructions, memoranda and issuances related to or concerning the barangay are hereby repealed. (c) The provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Republic Act No. 1939 regarding hospital fund; Section 3, a (3) and b (2) of Republic Act. No. 5447 regarding the Special Education Fund; Presidential Decree No. 144 as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 559 and 1741; Presidential Decree No. 231 as amended; Presidential Decree No. 436 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 558; and Presidential Decree Nos. 381, 436, 464, 477, 526, 632, 752, and 1136 are hereby repealed and rendered of no force and effect. (d) Presidential Decree No. 1594 is hereby repealed insofar as it governs locally-funded projects. (e) The following provisions are hereby repealed or amended insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Code: Sections 2, 16, and 29 of Presidential Decree No. 704; Sections 12 of Presidential Decree No. 87, as amended; Sections 52, 53, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended; and Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 972, as amended, and (f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Furthermore, it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. In Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol, 10 this Court explained: The cases relating to the subject of repeal by implication all proceed on the assumption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the lawmaking power to abrogate the prior law, this intention must be given effect; but there must always be a sufficient revelation of this intention, and it has become an unbending rule of statutory construction that the intention to repeal a former law will not be imputed to the Legislature when it appears that the two statutes, or provisions, with reference to which the question arises bear to each other the relation of general to special. There is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of P.D. 1869. On the contrary, as the private respondent points out, PAGCOR is mentioned as the source of funding in two later enactments of Congress, to wit, R.A. 7309, creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for the benefit of victims of unjust punishment or detention or of violent crimes, and R.A. 7648, providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis. PAGCOR revenues are tapped by these two statutes. This would show that the PAGCOR charter has not been repealed by the Local Government Code but has in fact been improved as it were to make the entity more responsive to the fiscal problems of the government.

It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve a becoming respect as the handiwork of a coordinate branch of the government. On the assumption of a conflict between P.D. 1869 and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible. This is possible in the case before us. The proper resolution of the problem at hand is to hold that under the Local Government Code, local government units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like P.D. 1869. The exception reserved in such laws must be read into the Code, to make both the Code and such laws equally effective and mutually complementary. This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authorized by law. Legalized gambling is not a modern concept; it is probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so. The petitioners' suggestion that the Code authorizes them to prohibit all kinds of gambling would erase the distinction between these two forms of gambling without a clear indication that this is the will of the legislature. Plausibly, following this theory, the City of Manila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office from conducting a lottery as authorized by R.A. 1169 and B.P. 42 or stop the races at the San Lazaro Hippodrome as authorized by R.A. 309 and R.A. 983. In light of all the above considerations, we see no way of arriving at the conclusion urged on us by the petitioners that the ordinances in question are valid. On the contrary, we find that the ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has the character and force of a statute, as well as the public policy expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games of chance despite the prohibition of gambling in general. The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on the right so far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature. 11 This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains

control of the local government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there are certain notable innovations in the Constitution, like the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax, 12 which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. The Court understands and admires the concern of the petitioners for the welfare of their constituents and their apprehensions that the welfare of Cagayan de Oro City will be endangered by the opening of the casino. We share the view that "the hope of large or easy gain, obtained without special effort, turns the head of the workman" 13 and that "habitual gambling is a cause of laziness and ruin." 14 In People v. Gorostiza, 15 we declared: "The social scourge of gambling must be stamped out. The laws against gambling must be enforced to the limit." George Washington called gambling "the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity and the father of mischief." Nevertheless, we must recognize the power of the legislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to legalize certain forms of gambling, as was done in P.D. 1869 and impliedly affirmed in the Local Government Code. That decision can be revoked by this Court only if it contravenes the Constitution as the touchstone of all official acts. We do not find such contravention here. We hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, remains unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government Code, which empowers the local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law. Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring: I concur with the majority holding that the city ordinances in question cannot modify much less repeal PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 1869. In Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 197 SCRA 52, I stated in a separate opinion that: . . . I agree with the decision insofar as it holds that the prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity known as gambling properly pertain to "state policy". It is, therefore, the political departments of government, namely, the legislative and the executive that should decide on what government should do in the entire area of gambling, and assume full responsibility to the people for such policy." (Emphasis supplied) However, despite the legality of the opening and operation of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City by respondent PAGCOR, I wish to reiterate my view that gambling in any form runs counter to the government's own efforts to re-establish and resurrect the Filipino moral character which is generally perceived to be in a state of continuing erosion. It is in the light of this alarming perspective that I call upon government to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of setting up more gambling facilities in the country. That the PAGCOR contributes greatly to the coffers of the government is not enough reason for setting up more gambling casinos because, undoubtedly, this will not help improve, but will cause a further deterioration in the Filipino moral character. It is worth remembering in this regard that, 1) what is legal is not always moral and 2) the ends do not always justify the means. As in Basco, I can easily visualize prostitution at par with gambling. And yet, legalization of the former will not render it any less reprehensible even if substantial revenue for the government can be realized from it. The same is true of gambling. In the present case, it is my considered view that the national government (through PAGCOR) should re-examine and re-evaluate its decision of imposing the gambling casino on the residents of Cagayan de Oro City; for it is abundantly clear that public opinion in the city is very much against it, and again the question must be seriously deliberated: will the prospects of revenue to be realized from the casino outweigh the further destruction of the Filipino sense of values?

DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring:

While I concur in part with the majority, I wish, however, to express my views on certain aspects of this case. I. It must at once be noted that private respondent Pryce Properties Corporation (PRYCE) directly filed with the Court of Appeals its so-called petition for prohibition, thereby invoking the said court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129. As I see it, however, the principal cause of action therein is one for declaratory relief: to declare null and unconstitutional for, inter alia, having been enacted without or in excess of jurisdiction, for impairing the obligation of contracts, and for being inconsistent with public policy the challenged ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro. The intervention therein of public respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) further underscores the "declaratory relief" nature of the action. PAGCOR assails the ordinances for being contrary to the non-impairment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, violative of the Local Government Code, and against the State's national policy declared in P.D. No. 1869. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Even assuming arguendo that the case is one for prohibition, then, under this Court's established policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. I find no special or compelling reason why it was not filed with the said court. I do not wish to entertain the thought that PRYCE doubted a favorable verdict therefrom, in which case the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals may have been impelled by tactical considerations. A dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals would have been in order pursuant to our decisions in People vs. Cuaresma (172 SCRA 415, [1989]) and Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez (217 SCRA 633 [1993]). In Cuaresma, this Court stated: A last word. This court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted by those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the revenue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-

crowding of the Court's docket. Indeed, the removal of the restriction of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in this regard, supra resulting from the deletion of the qualifying phrase, "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" was evidently intended precisely to relieve this Court pro tanto of the burden of dealing with applications for extraordinary writs which, but for the expansion of the Appellate Court's corresponding jurisdiction, would have had to be filed with it. (citations omitted) And in Vasquez, this Court said: One final observation. We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in the exercise of their original or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by law to be sought therein. This practice must be stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the previous time of this Court but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction. II. The challenged ordinances are (a) Ordinance No. 3353 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Issuance of Business Permit and Canceling Existing Business Permit To Any Establishment for the Using and Allowing to be Used Its Premises or Portion Thereof for the Operation of Casino," and (b) Ordinance No. 3375-93 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and Providing Penalty for Violation Therefor." They were enacted to implement Resolution No. 2295 entitled, "Resolution Declaring As a Matter of Policy to Prohibit and/or Not to Allow the Establishment of the Gambling Casino in the City of Cagayan de Oro," which was promulgated on 19 November 1990 nearly two years before PRYCE and PAGCOR entered into a contract of lease under which the latter leased a portion of the former's Pryce Plaza Hotel for the operation of a gambling casino which resolution was vigorously reiterated in Resolution No. 2673 of 19 October 1992. The challenged ordinances were enacted pursuant to the Sangguniang Panglungsod's express powers conferred by Section 458, paragraph (a), subparagraphs (1)-(v), (3)-(ii), and (4)-(i), (iv), and (vii), Local Government Code, and pursuant to its implied power under Section 16 thereof (the general welfare clause) which reads: Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local

government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. The issue that necessarily arises is whether in granting local governments (such as the City of Cagayan de Oro) the above powers and functions, the Local Government Code has, pro tanto, repealed P.D. No. 1869 insofar as PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is concerned. I join the majority in holding that the ordinances cannot repeal P.D. No. 1869. III. The nullification by the Court of Appeals of the challenged ordinances as unconstitutional primarily because it is in contravention to P.D. No. 1869 is unwarranted. A contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the constitution. In any case, the ordinances can still stand even if they be conceded as offending P.D. No. 1869. They can be reconciled, which is not impossible to do. So reconciled, the ordinances should be construed as not applying to PAGCOR. IV. From the pleadings, it is obvious that the government and the people of Cagayan de Oro City are, for obvious reasons, strongly against the opening of the gambling casino in their city. Gambling, even if legalized, would be inimical to the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City, or of any place for that matter. The PAGCOR, as a government-owned corporation, must consider the valid concerns of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and should not impose its will upon them in an arbitrary, if not despotic, manner.

# Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring: I concur with the majority holding that the city ordinances in question cannot modify much less repeal PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 1869. In Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 197 SCRA 52, I stated in a separate opinion that:

. . . I agree with the decision insofar as it holds that the prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity known as gambling properly pertain to "state policy". It is, therefore, the political departments of government, namely, the legislative and the executive that should decide on what government should do in the entire area of gambling, and assume full responsibility to the people for such policy. (emphasis supplied) However, despite the legality of the opening and operation of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City by respondent PAGCOR, I wish to reiterate my view that gambling in any form runs counter to the government's own efforts to re-establish and resurrect the Filipino moral character which is generally perceived to be in a state of continuing erosion. It is in the light of this alarming perspective that I call upon government to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of setting up more gambling facilities in the country. That the PAGCOR contributes greatly to the coffers of the government is not enough reason for setting up more gambling casinos because, undoubtedly, this will not help improve, but will cause a further deterioration in the Filipino moral character. It is worth remembering in this regard that, 1) what is legal is not always moral and 2) the ends do not always justify the means. As in Basco, I can easily visualize prostitution at par with gambling. And yet, legalization of the former will not render it any less reprehensible even if substantial revenue for the government can be realized from it. The same is true of gambling. In the present case, it is my considered view that the national government (through PAGCOR) should re-examine and re-evaluate its decision of imposing the gambling casino on the residents of Cagayan de Oro City; for it is abundantly clear that public opinion in the city is very much against it, and again the question must be seriously deliberated: will the prospects of revenue to be realized from the casino outweigh the further destruction of the Filipino sense of values? DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring: While I concur in part with the majority, I wish, however, to express my views on certain aspects of this case. I. It must at once be noted that private respondent Pryce Properties Corporation (PRYCE) directly filed with the Court of Appeals its so-called petition for prohibition, thereby invoking the said court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129. As I see it, however, the principal cause of action therein is one for declaratory relief: to declare null and unconstitutional for, inter alia, having been enacted without or in excess of jurisdiction, for impairing the obligation of contracts, and for being inconsistent with public policy the challenged ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro. The intervention therein of public respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation

(PAGCOR) further underscores the "declaratory relief" nature of the action. PAGCOR assails the ordinances for being contrary to the non-impairment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, violative of the Local Government Code, and against the State's national policy declared in P.D. No. 1869. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Even assuming arguendo that the case is one for prohibition, then, under this Court's established policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. I find no special or compelling reason why it was not filed with the said court. I do not wish to entertain the thought that PRYCE doubted a favorable verdict therefrom, in which case the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals may have been impelled by tactical considerations. A dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals would have been in order pursuant to our decisions in People vs. Cuaresma (172 SCRA 415, [1989]) and Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez (217 SCRA 633 [1993]). In Cuaresma, this Court stated: A last word. This court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted by those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the revenue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket. Indeed, the removal of the restriction of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in this regard, supra resulting from the deletion of the qualifying phrase, "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" was evidently intended precisely to relieve this Court pro tanto of the burden of dealing with applications for extraordinary writs which, but for the expansion of the Appellate Court's corresponding jurisdiction, would have had to be filed with it. (citations omitted) And in Vasquez, this Court said: One final observation. We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in the

exercise of their original or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by law to be sought therein. This practice must be stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the previous time of this Court but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction. II. The challenged ordinances are (a) Ordinance No. 3353 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Issuance of Business Permit and Canceling Existing Business Permit To Any Establishment for the Using and Allowing to be Used Its Premises or Portion Thereof for the Operation of Casino," and (b) Ordinance No. 3375-93 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and Providing Penalty for Violation Therefor." They were enacted to implement Resolution No. 2295 entitled, "Resolution Declaring As a Matter of Policy to Prohibit and/or Not to Allow the Establishment of the Gambling Casino in the City of Cagayan de Oro," which was promulgated on 19 November 1990 nearly two years before PRYCE and PAGCOR entered into a contract of lease under which the latter leased a portion of the former's Pryce Plaza Hotel for the operation of a gambling casino which resolution was vigorously reiterated in Resolution No. 2673 of 19 October 1992. The challenged ordinances were enacted pursuant to the Sangguniang Panglungsod's express powers conferred by Section 458, paragraph (a), subparagraphs (1)-(v), (3)-(ii), and (4)-(i), (iv), and (vii), Local Government Code, and pursuant to its implied power under Section 16 thereof (the general welfare clause) which reads: Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. The issue that necessarily arises is whether in granting local governments (such as the City of Cagayan de Oro) the above powers and functions, the Local Government Code has, pro tanto, repealed P.D. No. 1869 insofar as PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is concerned. I join the majority in holding that the ordinances cannot repeal P.D. No. 1869.

III. The nullification by the Court of Appeals of the challenged ordinances as unconstitutional primarily because it is in contravention to P.D. No. 1869 is unwarranted. A contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the constitution. In any case, the ordinances can still stand even if they be conceded as offending P.D. No. 1869. They can be reconciled, which is not impossible to do. So reconciled, the ordinances should be construed as not applying to PAGCOR. IV. From the pleadings, it is obvious that the government and the people of Cagayan de Oro City are, for obvious reasons, strongly against the opening of the gambling casino in their city. Gambling, even if legalized, would be inimical to the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City, or of any place for that matter. The PAGCOR, as a government-owned corporation, must consider the valid concerns of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and should not impose its will upon them in an arbitrary, if not despotic, manner. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23964 June 1, 1966

GREGORIO V. GAERLAN, JR., petitioner and appellee, vs. LUIS C. CATUBIG, respondent and appellant. D. C. Macaraeg, T. Guadiz, Jr., R. Hidalgo and N. F. Calimlim for petitioner and appellee. Santos D. Areola for respondent and appellant. SANCHEZ, J.: Registered candidates for councilors, amongst others in the eight-seat City Council of Dagupan City in the 1963 elections were petitioner Gregorio V. Gaerlan, Jr. and respondent Luis C. Catubig. Having obtained the third highest number of votes, the City Board of Canvassers, on December 2, 1963, proclaimed respondent Catubig one of the elected 8 councilors. Petitioner Gaerlan, on the other hand, lost his bid. Seasonably,1 petitioner went to Court on quo warranto to challenge respondent's eligibility2 for the office, on the averment of non-age. The judgment below gave the nod to petitioner and held respondent ineligible to hold the office of councilor of Dagupan City, excluded him there from, and declared vacant the seat he occupies in the City Board. Respondent appealed.

There is no quarrel as to the facts. Respondent Catubig was born in Dagupan City on May 19, 1939. At the time he presented his certificate of candidacy on September 10, 1963, he was 24 years, 3 months and 22 days; on election day, November 12, 1963, he was 24 years, 5 months and 24 days; and at the time he took his oath of office as councilor on January 1, 1964,3 he was 24 years, 7 months and 13 days. Whether respondent's age be reckoned as of the date of the filing of his certificate of candidacy, or the date of election,4 or the date set by law for the assumption of office the result is the same. Whichever date is adopted, still, respondent was below 25 years of age. With the foregoing backdrop, respondent calls upon us to resolve two questions: First, has petitioner a cause of action against respondent? Second, in the affirmative, is respondent eligible to the office of councilor of Dagupan City? 1. The thrust of respondent's argument is simply this: Petitioner Gaerlan, Jr. placed 16th out of the 16 candidates; Gaerlan thus has no right to the office, either by election or otherwise; and said petitioner cannot validly question respondent's right to sit. This case calls into question the applicability of Section 173 of the Revised Election Code5 which, in part, reads: Procedure against an ineligible person. When a person who is not eligible is elected to a provincial or municipal office, his right to the office may be contested by any registered candidate for the same office before the Court of First Instance of the province, within one week after the proclamation of his election, by filing a petition for quo warranto. ... The language of this statute is very plain. The right of a non-eligible person elected to a municipal office may be contested by any registered candidate for the same office. Petitioner perfectly fits into this legal precept. He was a registered candidate for the same office. It matters not that he has no claim or right to the office of councilor in the event respondent be ousted. Because the clear-cut language "any registered candidate for the same office" does not require that said candidate, if his quo warranto case prospers, himself occupy that office. Right here, we find a forbidding obstacle to any other view of the statute. To say otherwise would empty this legal provision of its obvious contents. Sanchez vs. Del Rosario, supra, is to be read as controlling in the present. There, as here, the office involved was that of Councilor, the statute under consideration the same Section 173, Revised Election Code. And again, there as here, petitioner would not sit if the action be successful. This Court there expressly ruled: That petitioner would not be entitled to the elective office even if respondent is ordered to vacate the same is likewise an invalid objection against the institution of this suit, for otherwise, Section 173 of the Revised Election Code would clearly be rendered nugatory. Under said law, the contestant's right to the office involved is not contemplated, and thus this Court has repeatedly ruled that respondent's declaration of ineligibility does not entitle the petitioner to said office (Luison vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-10981, April 25, 1958; Llamoso vs. Ferrer, 47 Off. Gaz., No. 2, 727; Calano vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-6404, January 12, 1954). Yet, in said rulings, the petitioners have never been considered to be without

any legal personality to file the necessary quo warranto proceedings. We need not conjecture into the philosophy of the law; suffice it to say that the legislature expressed its intentions very plainly.1wph1.t But respondent would want us to apply Section 6 of Rule 66 of the Revised Rules of Court, as follows: SEC. 6. When an individual may commence such an action. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another bring an action in his own name. Section 6 just quoted is out of focus. Petitioner here is not "claiming to be entitled" to the office of councilor. Besides, we are unprepared to scuttle the jurisprudence heretofore cited which is so well buttressed upon law and reason. Moreover, distinction should be drawn between quo warranto referring to an office filled by election and quo warranto involving an office held by appointment thus ... In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by election, what is to be determined is the eligibility of the candidate elect, while in quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the appointment. In the first case when the person elected is ineligible, the court cannot declare that the candidate occupying the second place has been elected, even if he were eligible, since the law only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes, and has presented his certificate of candidacy. In the second case, the court determines who has been legally appointed and can and ought to declare who is entitled to occupy the office.6 The foregoing, once again, emphasizes the rule that in quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by election, the only issue is the eligibility of the candidate elected. In such a posture it is beyond debate that the applicable statute here is Section 173 of the Revised Election Code, the specific law on the subject. And, petitioner's standing in court is confirmed. 2. Respondent's presses the claim that the question of age-eligibility should be governed by the provisions of Republic Act 1707 and not by Republic Act 2259.8 For ready reference, we present in parallel columns the two conflicting legal provisions on the left side, Section 12, Republic Act No. 170, as amended, and on the right, Section 6, Republic Act 2259. Sec. 12 x x x the elective members of the Municipality Board shall be qualified electors of the city, residents therein for at least one year, and not less than twentythree years of age. x x x" Sec. 6. No person shall be a City Mayor, Vice-Mayor, or Councilor unless he is at least twenty-five years of age, resident of the city for one year prior to his election and is a qualified voter.

Pertinent here it is to state that Republic Act No. 484 amending, inter alia, Section 12 of the Dagupan City Charter, took effect on June 10, 1950; whereas, Republic Act No. 2259 became law on June 19, 1959 nine years later. The problem, cast in legal setting, is whether or not Section 12 should give way to Section 6. On this point the following reproduced in haec verba from Libarnes vs. Executive Secretary, et al., L-21505, October 24, 1963, is an authoritative expositor of the law, viz: Again, the question whether or not a special law has been repealed or amended by one or more subsequent general laws is dependent mainly upon the intent of Congress in enacting the latter. The discussions on the floor of Congress show beyond doubt that its members intended to amend or repeal all provisions of special laws inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 2259, except those which are expressly excluded from the operation thereof. In fact, the explanatory note to Senate Bill No. 2, which upon approval, became Republic Act No. 2259, specifically mentions Zamboanga City, among others that had been considered by the authors of the bill in drafting the same. Similarly, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2259 makes reference to "all chartered cities in the Philippines", whereas Section 8 excludes from the operation of the Act "the cities of Manila, Cavite, Trece Martires and Tagaytay", and Section 4 contains a proviso exclusively for the City of Baguio, thus showing clearly that all cities not particularly excepted from the provisions of said Act including therefor, the City of Zamboanga are subject thereto.9 The only reference to Dagupan City in Republic Act 2259 is found in Section 2 thereof whereunder voters in said city, and in the City of Iloilo, are expressly precluded to vote for provincial officials. Therefore, by the terms of the Libarnes decision, the age-limit provision in the last-named statute (Republic Act 2259) is controlling. Indeed, we find no warrant in logic to go along with respondent. Adverting to Libarnes, supra, Act 2259 (Section 8) excludes from the operation thereof a number of cities. Dagupan City is not one of them. We are not to enter into the impermissible field of injecting into a statute a provision plainly omitted therefrom. And until Congress decrees otherwise, we are not to tamper with the present statutory set-up. Rather, we should go by what the legislative body has expressly ordained. And, this position we take here is accentuated by the fact that by Section 9 of Act 2259, All Acts or parts of Acts, Executive Orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed. Given the fact that Dagupan City beyond peradventure is removed from the exceptions, it stands to reason itself that its charter provision on the age limit is thereby repealed. And this, because "the last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words so as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject, and therefore to displace the prior statute." 10

Specifically with reference to the uniform age limit of 25 years set forth in Section 6 of Republic Act 2259, we take stock of the phraseology employed. This section starts with "No person shall be ... Councilor unless he is at least twenty-five years of age". This specific language gives us added reason to believe that in reality and for the sake of uniformity the 23-year age limit in the Dagupan City Charter must have to yield. Because in the legislative scheme, councilors are conferred the right to succeed the City Mayor in the event the Vice-Mayor is Unavailable. 11 The City Mayor must at least be 25 years of age. 12 So it is, that in the event a councilor 23 years of age is elected and before 25 years catapulted to the position of mayor, then we have the anomalous situation where the person succeeding as mayor will be less than 25 years. Such a situation, it seems to us, is not contemplated by the law. With the foregoing guideposts, we are unable to subscribe to the view that respondent's age qualification should be governed by the provisions of the Dagupan City Charter. We, accordingly, hold that respondent is disqualified on the ground of non-age: Because at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, at the time of the election, and at the time he took his oath of office, he was below the age of 25 years. Upon the law and the facts, we vote to affirm the appealed judgment. No costs allowed. So ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968

CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. GENARO N. TEOTICO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. City Fiscal Manuel T. Reyes for petitioner. Sevilla, Daza and Associates for respondents. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals. On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney to take him down town. After waiting for about five minutes, he managed to hail a

jeepney that came along to a stop. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flowed therefrom, impairing his vision, several persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brought Teotico to the Philippine General Hospital, where his injuries were treated, after which he was taken home. In addition to the lacerated wound in his left upper eyelid, Teotico suffered contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip apart from an abrasion on the right infra-patella region. These injuries and the allergic eruption caused by antitetanus injections administered to him in the hospital, required further medical treatment by a private practitioner who charged therefor P1,400.00. As a consequence of the foregoing occurrence, Teotico filed, with the Court of First Instance of Manila, a complaint which was, subsequently, amended for damages against the City of Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and quoted with approval by the Court of Appeals, At the time of the incident, plaintiff was a practicing public accountant, a businessman and a professor at the University of the East. He held responsible positions in various business firms like the Philippine Merchandising Co., the A.U. Valencia and Co., the Silver Swan Manufacturing Company and the Sincere Packing Corporation. He was also associated with several civic organizations such as the Wack Wack Golf Club, the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Y's Men Club of Manila and the Knights of Rizal. As a result of the incident, plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his customary occupation for twenty days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of about P50.00 during his incapacity to work. Because of the incident, he was subjected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends. During the period of his treatment, plaintiff was under constant fear and anxiety for the welfare of his minor children since he was their only support. Due to the filing of this case, plaintiff has obligated himself to pay his counsel the sum of P2,000.00. On the other hand, the defense presented evidence, oral and documentary, to prove that the Storm Drain Section, Office of the City Engineer of Manila, received a report of the uncovered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of P. Burgos and Old Luneta Streets, Manila, on January 24, 1958, but the same was covered on the same day (Exhibit 4); that again the iron cover of the same catch basin was reported missing on January 30, 1958, but the said cover was replaced the next day (Exhibit 5); that the Office of the City Engineer never received any report to the effect that the catchbasin in question was not covered between January 25 and 29, 1968; that it has always been a policy of the said office, which is charged with the duty of installation, repair and care of storm drains in the City of Manila, that whenever a report is received from whatever source of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is immediately attended to, either by immediately replacing the missing cover or covering the catchbasin with steel matting that because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailing, stealing of iron catchbasin covers was rampant; that the Office of the City Engineer has filed complaints in court resulting from theft of said iron covers; that in order to prevent such thefts, the city government has

changed the position and layout of catchbasins in the City by constructing them under the sidewalks with concrete cement covers and openings on the side of the gutter; and that these changes had been undertaken by the city from time to time whenever funds were available. After appropriate proceedings the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered the aforementioned decision sustaining the theory of the defendants and dismissing the amended complaint, without costs. On appeal taken by plaintiff, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the City of Manila is concerned, which was sentenced to pay damages in the aggregate sum of P6,750.00. 1 Hence, this appeal by the City of Manila. The first issue raised by the latter is whether the present case is governed by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) reading: The city shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other city officer, to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions. or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides: Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions of road, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because Republic Act 409, is a special law, intended exclusively for the City of Manila, whereas the Civil Code is a general law, applicable to the entire Philippines. The Court of Appeals, however, applied the Civil Code, and, we think, correctly. It is true that, insofar as its territorial application is concerned, Republic Act No. 409 is a special law and the Civil Code a general legislation; but, as regards the subject-matter of the provisions above quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for: "damages or injury to persons or property arising from the failure of" city officers "to enforce the provisions of" said Act "or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence" of the city "Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions." Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making "provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason" specifically "of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other-public works under their control or supervision." In other words, said section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability due to "defective

streets," in particular. Since the present action is based upon the alleged defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon. It is urged that the City of Manila cannot be held liable to Teotico for damages: 1) because the accident involving him took place in a national highway; and 2) because the City of Manila has not been negligent in connection therewith. As regards the first issue, we note that it is based upon an allegation of fact not made in the answer of the City. Moreover, Teotico alleged in his complaint, as well as in his amended complaint, that his injuries were due to the defective condition of a street which is "under the supervision and control" of the City. In its answer to the amended complaint, the City, in turn, alleged that "the streets aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good condition and regularly inspected and the storm drains and manholes thereof covered by the defendant City and the officers concerned" who "have been ever vigilant and zealous in the performance of their respective functions and duties as imposed upon them by law." Thus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and supervision. Moreover, the assertion to the effect that said Avenue is a national highway was made, for the first time, in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Such assertion raised, therefore, a question of fact, which had not been put in issue in the trial court, and cannot be set up, for the first time, on appeal, much less after the rendition of the decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof. At any rate, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street or road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from its "control or supervision" by the City of Manila, under Republic Act 409. In fact Section 18(x) thereof provides: Sec. 18. Legislative powers. The Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers: xxx xxx xxx

(x) Subject to the provisions of existing law to provide for the laying out, construction and improvement, and to regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, wharves, piers, parks, cemeteries, and other public places; to provide for lighting, cleaning, and sprinkling of streets and public places; . . . to provide for the inspection of, fix the license fees for and regulate the openings in the same for the laying of gas, water, sewer and other pipes, the building and repair of tunnels, sewers, and drains, and all structures in and under the same and the erecting of poles and the stringing of wires therein; to provide for and regulate cross-works, curbs, and gutters therein, . . . to regulate traffic and sales upon the streets and other public places; to provide for the abatement of nuisances in the same and punish the authors or owners thereof; to provide

for the construction and maintenance, and regulate the use, of bridges, viaducts and culverts; to prohibit and regulate ball playing, kite-flying, hoop rolling, and other amusements which may annoy persons using the streets and public places, or frighten horses or other animals; to regulate the speed of horses and other animals, motor and other vehicles, cars, and locomotives within the limits of the city; to regulate the lights used on all vehicles, cars, and locomotives; . . . to provide for and change the location, grade, and crossing of railroads, and compel any such railroad to raise or lower its tracks to conform to such provisions or changes; and to require railroad companies to fence their property, or any part thereof, to provide suitable protection against injury to persons or property, and to construct and repair ditches, drains, sewers, and culverts along and under their tracks, so that the natural drainage of the streets and adjacent property shall not be obstructed. This authority has been neither withdrawn nor restricted by Republic Act No. 917 and Executive Order No. 113, dated May 2, 1955, upon which the City relies. Said Act governs the disposition or appropriation of the highway funds and the giving of aid to provinces, chartered cities and municipalities in the construction of roads and streets within their respective boundaries, and Executive Order No. 113 merely implements the provisions of said Republic Act No. 917, concerning the disposition and appropriation of the highway funds. Moreover, it provides that "the construction, maintenance and improvement of national primary, national secondary and national aid provincial and city roads shall be accomplished by the Highway District Engineers and Highway City Engineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of Public Highways and shall be financed from such appropriations as may be authorized by the Republic of the Philippines in annual or special appropriation Acts." Then, again, the determination of whether or not P. Burgos Avenue is under the control or supervision of the City of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence, in connection with the maintenance of said road, which were decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative, is one of fact, and the findings of said Court thereon are not subject to our review. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the City of Manila. It is so ordered.1wph1.t Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 124293. November 20, 2000] JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, its Chairman and Members; ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST and PHILYARDS HOLDINGS, INC., respondents. DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On January 27, 1977, the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a government corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Kobe, Japan (Kawasaki) for the construction, operation, and management of the Subic National Shipyard, Inc. (SNS), which subsequently became the Philippine Shipyard and Engineering Corporation (PHILSECO). Under the JVA, NIDC and Kawasaki would maintain a shareholding proportion of 60%-40%, respectively. One of the provisions of the JVA accorded the parties the right of first refusal should either party sell, assign or transfer its interest in the joint venture. Thus, paragraph 1.4 of the JVA states: Neither party shall sell, transfer or assign all or any part of its interest in SNS to any third party without giving the other under the same terms the right of first refusal. This provision shall not apply if the transferee is a corporation owned or controlled by the GOVERNMENT or by a KAWASAKI affiliate. (Italics supplied.) On November 25, 1986, NIDC transferred all its rights, title and interest in PHILSECO to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). More than two months later or on February 3, 1987, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 14, PNBs interest in PHILSECO was transferred to the National Government. Meanwhile, on December 8, 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 establishing the Committee on Privatization (COP) and the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to take title to and possession of, conserve, manage and dispose of non-performing assets of the National Government. On February 27, 1987, a trust agreement was entered into between the National Government and the APT by virtue of which the latter was named the trustee of the National Governments share in PHILSECO. In 1989, as a result of a quasi-reorganization of PHILSECO to settle its huge obligations to PNB, the National Governments shareholdings in PHILSECO increased to 97.41% thereby reducing Kawasakis shareholdings to 2.59%. Exercising their discretion, the COP and the APT deemed it in the best interest of the national economy and the government to privatize PHILSECO by selling 87.67% of its total outstanding capital stock to private entities. After a series of negotiations between the APT and Kasawaki, they agreed that the latters right of first refusal under the JVA be exchanged for the right to top by five percent (5%) the highest bid for said shares. They further agreed that Kawasaki would be entitled to name a company in which it was a stockholder, which could exercise the right to top. On September 7, 1990, Kawasaki informed APT that Philyards Holdings, Inc. (PHI) would exercise its right to top by 5%. At the pre-bidding conference held on September 28, 1993, interested bidders were given copies of the JVA between NIDC and Kawasaki, and of the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the 87.67% equity (sic)xlv[1] in PHILSECO of the National Government. Salient provisions of the ASBR state: 1.0. The subject of this Asset Privatization Trust (APT) sale through public bidding is the National Governments equity in PHILSECO consisting of 896,869,942 shares of stock

(representing 87.67% of PHILSECOs oustanding capital stock), which will be sold as a whole block in accordance with the rules herein enumerated. xxx xxx xxx

3.0. This public bidding shall be on an Indicative Price Bidding basis. The Indicative price set for the National Governments 87.67% equity in PHILSECO is PESOS: ONE BILLION THREE HUNDRED MILLION (P1,300,000,000.00). xxx xxx xxx

12.0. The bidder shall be solely responsible for examining with appropriate care these rules, the official bid forms, including any addenda or amendments thereto issued during the bidding period. The bidder shall likewise be responsible for informing itself with respect to any and all conditions concerning the PHILSECO Shares which may, in any manner, affect the bidders proposal. Failure on the part of the bidder to so examine and inform itself shall be its sole risk and no relief for error or omission will be given by APT or COP. x x x. The provisions of the ASBR were explained to the interested bidders who were notified that bidding would be held on December 2, 1993. At the public bidding on said date, the consortium composed of petitioner JG Summit Holdings, Inc., Sembawang Shipyard Ltd. of Singapore (Sembawang), and Jurong Shipyard Limited of Malaysia (Jurong), was declared the highest bidder at P2.03 billion. The following day, December 3, 1993, the COP approved the sale of 87.67% National Government shares of stock in PHILSECO to said consortium. It notified petitioner of said approval subject to the right of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc./Philyards Holdings, Inc. to top JGSMIs (petitioners) bid by 5% as specified in the bidding rules. On December 29, 1993, petitioner informed the APT that it was protesting the offer of PHI to top its bid on the grounds that: (a) the Kawasaki/PHI consortium composed of Kawasaki, Philyards, Mitsui, Keppel, SM Group, ICTSI and Insular Life violated the ASBR because the last four (4) companies were the losing bidders (for P1.528 billion) thereby circumventing the law and prejudicing the weak winning bidder; (b) only Kawasaki could exercise the right to top; (c) giving the same option to top to PHI constituted unwarranted benefit to a third party; (d) no right of first refusal can be exercised in a public bidding or auction sale, and (e) the JG Summit Consortium was not estopped from questioning the proceedings. On February 2, 1994, petitioner was notified that PHI had fully paid the balance of the purchase price of the subject bidding. On February 7, 1994, the APT notified petitioner that PHI had exercised its option to top the highest bid and that the COP had approved the same on January 6, 1994. On February 24, 1994, the APT and PHI executed a Stock Purchase Agreement. Consequently, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for mandamus under G.R. No. 114057. On May 11,1994, said petition was referred to the Court of Appeals ---

x x x for proper determination and disposition, pursuant to Section 9, paragraph 1 of B.P. 129, granting the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus x x x and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, which jurisdiction is concurrent with this Court, there being no special and important reason for this Court to assume jurisdiction over the case in the first instance.xlvi[2] On July 18, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied for lack of merit the petition for mandamus. Citing Guanio v. Fernandez,xlvii[3] it held that mandamus is not the proper remedy to compel the undoing of an act already done or the correction of a wrong already perpetuated, even though the action taken was clearly illegal. It was further ruled that it was not the proper forum for a mere petition for mandamus that aimed to question the constitutionality or legality of the right of first refusal and the right to top that was exercised by Kawasaki/PHI and that the matter must be brought by the proper party in the proper forum at the proper time and threshed out in a full blown trial. After ruling that the right of first refusal and the right to top are prima facie legal, the Court of Appeals found petitioner to be in estoppel for the following reasons: 5. If petitioner found the right to top to be illegal, it should not have participated in the public bidding; or it should have questioned the legality of the rules before the courts or filed a petition for declaratory relief (Rule 64, Rules of Court) before the public bidding could have taken place. By participating in the public bidding, with full knowledge of the right to top granted to Kawasaki/Philyards, petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of the award given to Philyards after the latter exercised the right to top and had paid in full the purchase price of the subject shares, pursuant to the ASBR. 6. The fact that the losing bidder, Keppel Consortium (composed of Keppel, SM Group, Insular Life Assurance, Mitsui and ICTSI) appears to have joined Philyards in the latters effort to raise P2.131 billion necessary in exercising the right to top by 5% is a valid activity in free enterprise that is not contrary to law, public policy or public morals. It should not be a cause of grievance for petitioner as it is the very essence of free competition in the business world. Astute businessmen involved in the public bidding in question knew what they were up against. And when they participated in the public bidding with prior knowledge of the right to top, they did so, with full knowledge of the eventuality that the highest bidder may still be topped by Kawasaki/Philyards by 5%. It is admitted by petitioner that it likewise represents a consortium composed of JG Summit, Sembawang Singapore and Jurong of Malaysia. Why should petitioner then expect Philyards to limit itself to its own resources when the latter can enter into agreements with other entities to help it raise the money it needed to pay the full purchase price as in fact it had already paid the National Government in the amount of P2.131 billion as required under the ASBR?xlviii[4] Petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of said Decision which was denied on March 15, 1996. Petitioner thus filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, raising the following arguments:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER JG SUMMIT IS LEGALLY ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE RIGHT TO TOP, INSERTED IN THE BIDDING RULES, AS WELL AS THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FROM WHICH THE RIGHT TO TOP WAS ADMITTEDLY SOURCED, BY SIMPLY STATING THAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT RULING ON ANY OF THE IMPORTANT LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, GRANTED TO A JAPANESE CORPORATION AT A TIME WHEN IT HELD 40% EQUITY IN PHILSECO, A LANDHOLDING CORPORATION, IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION. (B) THE RIGHT TO TOP WAS GRANTED TO THE JAPANESE CORPORATION AT A TIME WHEN IT MERELY HELD 2.6% EQUITY IN PHILSECO. (C) THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL GRANTED TO THE JAPANESE CORPORATION OVER SHARES OF STOCK IS CONTRARY TO THE CORPORATION CODE. (D) THE RIGHT TO TOP IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY AS IT IS ANATHEMA TO COMPETITIVE PUBLIC BIDDING FOR BEING UNDULY RESTRICTIVE THEREOF, AND, MOREOVER, IS CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS IT IS AGAINST THE BASIC RUDIMENTS OF FAIR PLAY. (E) THE GRANT OF THE RIGHT TO TOP IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-GRAFT LAW AS IT GIVES A CLEARLY UNWARRANTED BENEFIT IN FAVOR OF PHILYARDS AS SHOWN BY CLEAR AND UNDISPUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MANDAMUS IS NOT A PROPER REMEDY IN THIS CASE. III. FOLLOWING ITS OWN FINDINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED (A) IN NOT DIRECTING THAT TRIAL BE HELD ON ALLEGED ISSUES OF FACT AND (B) IN NOT APPOINTING AN AMICUS CURIAE FROM AMONG THE LAWYERS IN THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF ITS REQUIREMENTS TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN THIS CASE.xlix[5] In their comment on the petition, private respondent PHI contends that the real party in interest which should have filed the petition for mandamus is the JG Summit Consortium and not solely

petitioner JG Summit Holdings, Inc. which is just a part of that consortium. Since Sembawang and Jurong, the other members of the consortium, are indispensable parties to the petition,l[6] petitioners failure to implead them as co-petitioners warranted the dismissal of the petition. Public respondents contention must fail. While it is true that Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that (a)ll persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs, petitioner may file the petition alone. In the first place, Sembawang and Jurong are not indispensable parties, such that their non-joinder as petitioners will not necessarily result in a failure to arrive at a final determination of the case.li[7] They may be necessary parties as they were members of the consortium that won the public bidding prior to the exercise of the right to top by private respondent, but the petition may be resolved even without their active participation. Secondly, there is a doubt as to whether or not said foreign corporations are subject to the jurisdiction of the court as to both service of process and venue.lii[8] Thirdly, petitioner may be deemed to represent Sembawang and Jurong. The admission of petitioners counsel that said foreign corporations are underwriting his and the other counsels fees reflects this fact.liii[9] By the nexus that binds the members of the consortium, in the event that petitioner succeeds in pursuing this case, it is bound to respect the existence of the consortium and the corresponding responsibilities arising therefrom. Public respondents also contend that petitioner has no standing to question the legality of a provision of the JVA in which it is not a party.liv[10] However, as this Court held in Kilosbayan v. Morato,lv[11] there is a difference between the rule on real-party-in-interest and the rule on standing, as the latter has constitutional underpinnings. In the case at bar, petitioner has sufficiently alleged constitutional ramifications in the questioned public bidding of the PHILSECO that merit the attention of the Court. Moreover, the prospect of financial gains arising from the award of the sale of PHILSECO is enough personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to vest upon petitioner the locus standi to file the petition for mandamus. Besides, without Kawasaki-PHIs right to top the highest bid, petitioner would have been awarded the sale as the highest bidder. A winning bidder has personality to initiate proceedings to prevent setting at naught his right; otherwise, his right to due process would be violated.lvi[12] As such winning bidder, petitioner has a present substantial interest, or such interest in the subject matter of action as will entitle it, under substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient.lvii [13] With respect to the propriety of the remedy availed by petitioner, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the special civil action of mandamus is not the proper remedy to question the legality of the exercise of the right to top by private respondent. It does not lie to compel the award of a contract subject of bidding to an unsuccessful bidder.lviii[14] Mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioners right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.lix[15] Thus: In order that a writ of mandamus may issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for the same has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties and is never issued in doubtful cases. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.lx[16]

The Court of Appeals cannot declare petitioner as the winning bidder in this case and direct the COP/APT to award the sale to it without first determining the validity of the right to top stipulated in the ASBR. Moreover, the sale of government share in PHILSECO is a fait accompli, in view of the execution of the Stock Purchase Agreement between APT and PHI. Mandamus may not be availed to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or to retract or reverse an action already taken in the exercise of either.lxi[17] Be that as it may, the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition on the sole ground of the impropriety of the special civil action of mandamus. It must be stressed that the petition was also one for certiorari, seeking to nullify the award of the sale to private respondent of the PHILSECO shares. Verily, the petition alleges that respondents COP and APT have committed such a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of their jurisdiction in insisting on awarding the bid to Philyards, for the various reasons stated herein, particularly since the right of first refusal and the right to top the bid are unconstitutional, contrary to law and public policy.lxii[18] Petitioners failure to include certiorari in its caption should not negate the fact that the petition charged public respondent with grave abuse of discretion in awarding the sale to private respondent. Well-settled is the rule that it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action and the Court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.lxiii[19] Petitioners main contention is that PHILSECO, as a shipyard, is a public utility and, hence, could be operated only by a corporation at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens, in accordance with Article XII, Section 10 of the Constitution. Petitioner asserts that a shipyard is a public utility pursuant to Section 13 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 146.lxiv[20] Respondents, on the other hand, contend that shipyards are no longer public utilities by express provision of Presidential Decree No. 666, which provided incentives to the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. Indeed, P.D. No. 666 dated March 5, 1975 explicitly stated that a shipyard was not a public utility. Section 1 thereof provide as follows: d) Registration required but not as Public Utility. The business of constructing and repairing vessels or parts thereof shall not be considered a public utility and no Certificate of Public Convenience shall be required therefor. However, no shipyard, graving dock, marine railway or marine repair shop and no person or enterprise shall engage in the construction and/or repair of any vessel, or any phase or part thereof, without a valid Certificate of Registration and license for this purpose from the Maritime Industry Authority, except those owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the Philippines or by foreign governments pursuant to a treaty or agreement. (Underscoring supplied.) However, Section 1 of P.D. No. 666 was expressly repealed by Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 391, the Investment Incentive Policy Act of 1983.lxv[21] Subsequently, Executive Order No. 226, the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, was issued and Section 85 thereof expressly repealed B.P. Blg. 391.lxvi[22]

The express repeal of B.P. Blg. 391 by E.O. No. 226 did not revive Section 1 of P.D. No. 666, declassifying the shipbuilding and ship repair industry as a public utility, as said executive order did not provide otherwise. When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided.lxvii[23] Consequently, when the APT drafted the ASBR sometime in 1993, P.D. No. 666 no longer existed in our statute books. While it is true that the repeal of a statute does not operate to impair rights that have become vested or accrued while the statute was in force, there are no vested rights of the parties that should be protected in the case at bar. The reason is simple: said decree was already inexistent when the ASBR was issued. A shipyard such as PHILSECO being a public utility as provided by law, the following provision of the Article XII of the Constitution applies: Sec. 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association shall be citizens of the Philippines. (Italics supplied.) The progenitor of this constitutional provision, Article XIV, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution, required the same proportion of 60%-40% capitalization. The JVA between NIDC and Kawasaki entered into on January 27, 1977 manifests the intention of the parties to abide by the constitutional mandate on capitalization of public utilities.lxviii[24] Paragraph 1.3 of the JVA, as amended by Addendum No. 2 dated December 28, 1983,lxix[25] provides: The authorized capital stock of PHILSECO shall be P330 milion. The parties shall thereafter increase their subscription in PHILSECO as may be necessary and as called by the Board of Directors, maintaining a proportion of 60%-40% for NIDC and KAWASAKI, respectively, up to a total subscribed and paid-up capital stock of P312 million. (Underscoring supplied.) A joint venture is an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise with all of them generally contributing assets and sharing risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement to share both in profit and losses.lxx[26] Persons and business enterprises usually enter into a joint venture because it is exempt from corporate income tax.lxxi[27] Considered more of a partnership,lxxii[28] a joint venture is governed by the laws on contracts and on partnership. The joint venture created between NIDC and Kawasaki falls within the purview of an association pursuant to Section 5 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution and Section 11 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Consequently, a joint venture that would engage in the business of operating a

public utility, such as a shipyard, must observe the proportion of 60%-40% Filipino-foreign capitalization. Notably, paragraph 1.4 of the JVA accorded the parties the right of first refusal under the same terms. This phrase implies that when either party exercises the right of first refusal under paragraph 1.4, they can only do so to the extent allowed them by paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the JVA or under the proportion of 60%-40% of the shares of stock. Thus, should the NIDC opt to sell its shares of stock to a third party, Kawasaki could only exercise its right of first refusal to the extent that its total shares of stock would not exceed 40% of the entire shares of stock of SNS or PHILSECO. The NIDC, on the other hand, may purchase even beyond 60% of the total shares. As a government corporation and necessarily a 100% Filipino-owned corporation, there is nothing to prevent its purchase of stocks even beyond 60% of the capitalization as the Constitution clearly limits only foreign capitalization. Parenthetically, the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) which has been tasked to regulate the operation of shipbuilding and ship repair yards,lxxiii[29] abides by the Filipino capitalization requirement as far as corporations and partnerships are concerned. However, Section 2.3.1 (a) of its Memorandum Circular No. 95, Series of 1994,lxxiv[30] setting out the Revised Implementing Guidelines on the Licensing of Shipbuilders, Ship Repairers, Afloat Repairers, Boatbuilders and Shipbreakers, seems to exempt joint ventures registered with the SEC, the BOI and the EPZA from the 60% requirement of Filipino ownership.lxxv[31] The said provision states: The applicant must be a Filipino citizen or a corporation/partnership at least 60% of the authorized capital stock of which is owned by Filipino citizens except for joint ventures which are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board of Investments and/or Export Processing Zone Authorities.lxxvi[32] The constitutionality of said MARINA guideline, however, is not in issue here. Kawasaki was bound by its contractual obligation under the JVA that limits its right of first refusal to 40% of the total capitalization of PHILSECO. Thus, Kawasaki cannot purchase beyond 40% of the capitalization of the joint venture on account of both constitutional and contractual proscriptions. From the facts on record, it appears that at the outset, the APT and Kawasaki respected the 60%40% capitalization proportion in PHILSECO. However, APT subsequently encouraged Kawasaki to participate in the public bidding of the National Governments shareholdings of 87.67% of the total PHILSECO shares, definitely over and above the 40% limit of its shareholdings. In so doing, the APT went beyond the ambit of its authority. It is well settled that the role of courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of Government has transgressed its constitutional or statutory boundaries. The courts, must examine those boundaries in the light of provisions of the law. Otherwise, it would stray into the realm of policy decision-making.lxxvii[33]

Proclamation No. 50, creating the COP and the APT, was issued by President Corazon C. Aquino pursuant to her legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution of 1986. Section 12 of said Proclamation vested the APT with the following powers: (1) To formulate and, after approval by the Committee, implement a program for the disposition of assets transferred to it under this Proclamation, such program to be completed within a period of five years from the date of the issuance of this Proclamation; (2) Subject to its having received the prior written approval of the Committee to sell such asset at a price and on terms of payment and to a party disclosed to the Committee, to sell each asset referred to it by the Committee to such party and on such terms as in its discretion are in the best interest of the National Government, and for such purpose to execute and deliver, on behalf and in the name of the National Government, such deeds of sale, contracts and other instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to convey title to such assets; xxx xxx xxx

(7) To adopt its internal rules and regulations, to adopt, alter and use a seal which shall be judicially noticed; to enter into contracts; to sue and be sued; xxx xxx x x x

Pursuant to these provisions, the APT drafted the ASBR. Since the APTs rule-making authority is merely delegated, the ASBR should be measured by the standard set by said proclamation.lxxviii [34] Notably, the discretion granted by the proclamation to the APT for the sale of government property is circumscribed only by the best interest of the National Government. Implicitly written in any delegated legislative authority, such as that provided for in Proclamation No. 50, is the requisite that the rules and regulations which an administrative body adopts must respect pertinent provisions of the Constitution and the law.lxxix[35] Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution providing for a 60% Filipino capitalization in order that public utilities may be granted a franchise should thus be deemed a paramount consideration in drafting the ASBR. In this regard, worth noting is paragraph 15.0 of the ASBR, which provides that: In the event that the winning bidder is a 100% foreign-owned corporation, it may name its nominee corporation to whom the NG shares shall be conveyed, provided it owns 40% equity in the nominee corporation, so as not to affect PHILSECOs qualification to own real estate properties in the Philippines. This rule is fraught with dangerous implications. It allows a completely foreign corporation to participate in the public bidding of more than 60% of the total shares of a public utility corporation without setting a period within which the foreign bidder should name its nominee. As it is, the rule allows a totally foreign investor to engage in the business of operating a public utility for an unlimited period of time in total disregard of the constitutional proscription on the percentage of Filipino ownership of corporations engaged therein. Paragraph 15.0 of the ASBR

is thus directly and openly repugnant to the Constitution considering that it allows foreign corporations to operate a public utility for an unlimited period of time. In carrying out its objective of disposing of government property, the APT should take into account the pertinent laws. Since the method of disposing the PHILSECO that the APT had adopted was through public bidding, it was duty-bound to follow the rules and regulations on competitive public bidding, in order to uphold the elementary rule on fairness in such disposition. As this Court once said: x x x. A competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition. It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts.lxxx[36] The word bidding in its comprehensive sense means making an offerlxxxi[37] or an invitation to prospective contractors whereby the government manifests its intention to make proposalslxxxii[38] for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment for official business or public use,lxxxiii[39] or for public works or repair. The three principles in public bidding are: the offer to the public; an opportunity for competition; and a basis for exact comparison of bids. The distinctive character of the system is destroyed and the purpose of its adoption is thwarted when a regulation thereon excludes any of these principles.lxxxiv[40] Public bidding of government contracts and for the disposition of government assets should have the same principles and objectives. Their only difference, if at all, is that in the public bidding for public contracts, the award is generally given to the lowest bidder while in the disposition of government assets, the award is to the highest bidder.lxxxv[41] The term public bidding imports a sale to the highest bidder with absolute freedom for competitive bidding.lxxxvi[42] Under Section 504 of the Government Auditing Rules and Regulations, a public auction, which is the mode of divestment or disposal of government property, shall adhere to established mechanics and procedures in public bidding.lxxxvii[43] In such public auction sales, the presence of a Commission on Audit (COA) representative who shall see to the proper observance of auditing rules is imperative.lxxxviii[44] In this case, there is no record that a COA representative witnessed the public auction on December 2, 1993. Neither is there a showing that the APT observed the requirement of COA Circular No. 89-296, to the effect that a government entity that is disposing of government property shall furnish the COA with the disposal procedure adopted. Likewise, nowhere in the record is it stated that the APT heeded the suggestion of Secretary of Finance and COP Chairman Jayme that its decision to grant Kawasaki the right to top the highest bid be made known to the Commission on Audit. What appears on record is that the COA did not approve the ASBR, specifically the provision on the right to top the highest bidder. Thus, then COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria, replying to the query of petitioners counsel on whether or not the COA had approved the right to top the highest bid by 5%, stated: Per information received from our Auditor at APT, no prior approval was issued by their Office regarding said preferential option. We have instructed our Auditor thereat to advise this Office of the result of the review of the Corporations procedures for the sale of the assets including the review of the bidding documents pertaining to the subject public bidding pursuant to the provisions of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 89-296 dated January 27, 1989.lxxxix[45]

In according the KHI/PHI the right to top, the APT violated the rule on competitive public bidding, under which the highest bidder is declared the winner entitled to the award of the subject of the auction sale. In effect, the grant to KHI/PHI of the right to top can be likened to a second bidding, which, however, is allowed only if there is a failure of bidding, such as when there is only one bidder or none at all.xc[46] By placing KHI/PHI in the advantageous position of topping the highest bidder, the APT set aside the basic rule in public bidding that there be an opportunity for competition. While it may be argued that the right to top was aimed at giving the best financial advantage to the government, the manner by which that right was conceived and arrived at in this case manifested bias in favor of KHI, thereby clearly brushing aside the rule on fair competition. More importantly, the ASBR provision on the right to top the highest bidder completely disregarded the stipulation in the JVA between NIDC and KHI to comply with the 60%-40% capitalization arrangement whereby KHI, the foreign investor, would be able to exercise its right of first refusal to the extent of only 40% of the total capitalization of the PHILSECO. Thus, KHI, whose investment exposure was already diminished to only 2.59% of the total PHILSECO shares, was given the privilege, through its nominee PHI, of exercising the right to top the highest bid to 87.67% of those shares or definitely over and above its 40% contractual right to PHILSECO shares under the JVA. Consequently, the APT rendered nugatory the constitutional and contractual proscriptions clearly to favor a foreign investor. Furthermore, while the right of first refusal entitled KHI to priority in the award of the contract, that right cannot bar another bidder from submitting a bid because, precisely, the law requires public bidding in government contracts.xci[47] Thus, by engrafting in the provisions of the ASBR the right to top, which was only an offshoot of the right of first refusal, the APT effectively did away with pubic bidding insofar as KHI/PHI was concerned. To be sure, the right to top is different from the right to match. In the latter, a qualified bidder is given the privilege of offering the same bid as that of the highest bidder.xcii[48] In the former, as provided for by the ASBR, a non-bidder is accorded the right to top the highest bid. There is reason, therefore, for the petitioner to complain that the APT made a show of a public bidding in order to elicit the highest bid, only to award the sale to a non-bidder. The unfair manner by which the purported public bidding was conducted by the APT is even made more blatant by the fact that after the public bidding, KHI exercised the right to top through its nominee, private respondent PHI, which has among its stockholders some losing bidders. In drafting the ASBR, the APT should have noted the fact that foreign investors were competing in the bidding. While it is true that foreign investment should be encouraged in this country, however, the ASBR provision on the right to top is unfair to all competitors, be they foreign or local, in the public auction of 87.67% of PHILSECO shares as it provided for a method that would set at naught the entire public bidding. It was thus error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that petitioner was estopped from contesting the validity of the ASBR and the bidding procedure conducted pursuant to it. It is clear from the provisions of the ASBR itself that the basic rules on fair competition in public biddings have been disregarded. Although petitioner had the opportunity to examine the ASBR before it participated in the bidding, it cannot be estopped from questioning the unconstitutional,

illegal and inequitable provisions thereof. Estoppel is unavailing in this case; otherwise, it would stamp validity to an act that is prohibited by law or against public policy.xciii[49] WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ordered to pay to APT its bid price of Two Billion Thirty Million Pesos (P2,030,000,000.00), less its bid deposit plus interests upon the finality of this Decision. In turn, APT is ordered to: (a) petitioner; (b) accept said amount of P2,030,000,000.00 less bid deposit and interests from

execute a Stock Purchase Agreement with petitioner;

(c) cause the issuance in favor of petitioner of the certificates of stocks representing 87.67% of PHILSECOs total capitalization; (d) return to private respondent PHI the amount of Two Billion One Hundred Thirty One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,131,500,000.00); and (e) cause the cancellation of the stock certificates issued to PHI.

SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur. SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 124293. September 24, 2003] JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, its Chairman and Members; ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST and PHILYARDS HOLDINGS, INC., respondents. RESOLUTION PUNO, J.: The core issue posed by the Motions for Reconsideration is whether a shipyard is a public utility whose capitalization must be sixty percent (60%) owned by Filipinos. Our resolution of this issue will determine the fate of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. It can either spell the industrys demise or breathe new life to the struggling but potentially healthy partner in the countrys bid for economic growth. It can either kill an initiative yet in its infancy, or harness creativity in the productive disposition of government assets. The facts are undisputed and can be summarized briefly as follows:

On January 27, 1977, the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a government corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Kobe, Japan (KAWASAKI) for the construction, operation and management of the Subic National Shipyard, Inc. (SNS) which subsequently became the Philippine Shipyard and Engineering Corporation (PHILSECO). Under the JVA, the NIDC and KAWASAKI will contribute P330 million for the capitalization of PHILSECO in the proportion of 60%-40% respectively. [1] One of its salient features is the grant to the parties of the right of first refusal should either of them decide to sell, assign or transfer its interest in the joint venture, viz:
1

1.4 Neither party shall sell, transfer or assign all or any part of its interest in SNS [PHILSECO] to any third party without giving the other under the same terms the right of first refusal. This provision shall not apply if the transferee is a corporation owned or controlled by the GOVERNMENT or by a KAWASAKI affiliate. [2]
2

On November 25, 1986, NIDC transferred all its rights, title and interest in PHILSECO to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Such interests were subsequently transferred to the National Government pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14. On December 8, 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 establishing the Committee on Privatization (COP) and the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to take title to, and possession of, conserve, manage and dispose of non-performing assets of the National Government. Thereafter, on February 27, 1987, a trust agreement was entered into between the National Government and the APT wherein the latter was named the trustee of the National Governments share in PHILSECO. In 1989, as a result of a quasi-reorganization of PHILSECO to settle its huge obligations to PNB, the National Governments shareholdings in PHILSECO increased to 97.41% thereby reducing KAWASAKIs shareholdings to 2.59%. [3]
3

In the interest of the national economy and the government, the COP and the APT deemed it best to sell the National Governments share in PHILSECO to private entities. After a series of negotiations between the APT and KAWASAKI, they agreed that the latters right of first refusal under the JVA be exchanged for the right to top by five percent (5%) the highest bid for the said shares. They further agreed that KAWASAKI would be entitled to name a company in which it was a stockholder, which could exercise the right to top. On September 7, 1990, KAWASAKI informed APT that Philyards Holdings, Inc. (PHI) would exercise its right to top.
4

[4]

At the pre-bidding conference held on September 18, 1993, interested bidders were given copies of the JVA between NIDC and KAWASAKI, and of the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the National Governments 87.6% equity share in PHILSECO. [5] The provisions of
5

1 2 3 4 5

the ASBR were explained to the interested bidders who were notified that the bidding would be held on December 2, 1993. A portion of the ASBR reads: 1.0 The subject of this Asset Privatization Trust (APT) sale through public bidding is the National Governments equity in PHILSECO consisting of 896,869,942 shares of stock (representing 87.67% of PHILSECOs outstanding capital stock), which will be sold as a whole block in accordance with the rules herein enumerated. ... 2.0 The highest bid, as well as the buyer, shall be subject to the final approval of both the APT Board of Trustees and the Committee on Privatization (COP). 2.1 APT reserves the right in its sole discretion, to reject any or all bids. 3.0 This public bidding shall be on an Indicative Price Bidding basis. The Indicative price set for the National Governments 87.67% equity in PHILSECO is PESOS: ONE BILLION THREE HUNDRED MILLION (P1,300,000,000.00). ... 6.0 The highest qualified bid will be submitted to the APT Board of Trustees at its regular meeting following the bidding, for the purpose of determining whether or not it should be endorsed by the APT Board of Trustees to the COP, and the latter approves the same. The APT shall advise Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or its nominee, Philyards Holdings, Inc., that the highest bid is acceptable to the National Government. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or Philyards Holdings, Inc. shall then have a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of such advice from APT within which to exercise their Option to Top the Highest Bid by offering a bid equivalent to the highest bid plus five (5%) percent thereof. 6.1 Should Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or Philyards Holdings, Inc. exercise their Option to Top the Highest Bid, they shall so notify the APT about such exercise of their option and deposit with APT the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the highest bid plus five percent (5%) thereof within the thirty (30)-day period mentioned in paragraph 6.0 above. APT will then serve notice upon Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or Philyards Holdings, Inc. declaring them as the preferred bidder and they shall have a period of ninety (90) days from the receipt of the APTs notice within which to pay the balance of their bid price. 6.2 Should Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or Philyards Holdings, Inc. fail to exercise their Option to Top the Highest Bid within the thirty (30)-day period, APT will declare the highest bidder as the winning bidder. ... 12.0 The bidder shall be solely responsible for examining with appropriate care these rules, the official bid forms, including any addenda or amendments thereto issued during the bidding

period. The bidder shall likewise be responsible for informing itself with respect to any and all conditions concerning the PHILSECO Shares which may, in any manner, affect the bidders proposal. Failure on the part of the bidder to so examine and inform itself shall be its sole risk and no relief for error or omission will be given by APT or COP. . .. [6]
6

At the public bidding on the said date, petitioner J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc. submitted a bid of Two Billion and Thirty Million Pesos (P2,030,000,000.00) with an acknowledgement of KAWASAKI/Philyards right to top, viz: 4. I/We understand that the Committee on Privatization (COP) has up to thirty (30) days to act on APTs recommendation based on the result of this bidding. Should the COP approve the highest bid, APT shall advise Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or its nominee, Philyards Holdings, Inc. that the highest bid is acceptable to the National Government. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or Philyards Holdings, Inc. shall then have a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of such advice from APT within which to exercise their Option to Top the Highest Bid by offering a bid equivalent to the highest bid plus five (5%) percent thereof. [7]
7

As petitioner was declared the highest bidder, the COP approved the sale on December 3, 1993 subject to the right of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc./Philyards Holdings, Inc. to top JGSMIs bid by 5% as specified in the bidding rules. [8]
8

On December 29, 1993, petitioner informed APT that it was protesting the offer of PHI to top its bid on the grounds that: (a) the KAWASAKI/PHI consortium composed of Kawasaki, Philyards, Mitsui, Keppel, SM Group, ICTSI and Insular Life violated the ASBR because the last four (4) companies were the losing bidders thereby circumventing the law and prejudicing the weak winning bidder; (b) only KAWASAKI could exercise the right to top; (c) giving the same option to top to PHI constituted unwarranted benefit to a third party; (d) no right of first refusal can be exercised in a public bidding or auction sale; and (e) the JG Summit consortium was not estopped from questioning the proceedings. [9]
9

On February 2, 1994, petitioner was notified that PHI had fully paid the balance of the purchase price of the subject bidding. On February 7, 1994, the APT notified petitioner that PHI had exercised its option to top the highest bid and that the COP had approved the same on January 6, 1994. On February 24, 1994, the APT and PHI executed a Stock Purchase Agreement. [10] Consequently, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus under G.R. No. 114057. On May 11, 1994, said petition was referred to the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied the same for lack of merit. It ruled that the petition for mandamus was not the proper remedy to question the constitutionality or legality of the right of first refusal and the right
10

6 7 8 9 10

to top that was exercised by KAWASAKI/PHI, and that the matter must be brought by the proper party in the proper forum at the proper time and threshed out in a full blown trial. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the right of first refusal and the right to top are prima facie legal and that the petitioner, by participating in the public bidding, with full knowledge of the right to top granted to KASAWASAKI/Philyards is . . .estopped from questioning the validity of the award given to Philyards after the latter exercised the right to top and had paid in full the purchase price of the subject shares, pursuant to the ASBR. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision which was denied on March 15, 1996. Petitioner thus filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court. [11]
11

On November 20, 2000, this Court rendered the now assailed Decision ruling among others that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition on the sole ground of the impropriety of the special civil action of mandamus because the petition was also one of certiorari. [12] It further ruled that a shipyard like PHILSECO is a public utility whose capitalization must be sixty percent (60%) Filipino-owned. [13] Consequently, the right to top granted to KAWASAKI under the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the sale of the 87.67% equity of the National Government in PHILSECO is illegal---not only because it violates the rules on competitive bidding--- but more so, because it allows foreign corporations to own more than 40% equity in the shipyard. [14] It also held that although the petitioner had the opportunity to examine the ASBR before it participated in the bidding, it cannot be estopped from questioning the unconstitutional, illegal and inequitable provisions thereof. [15] Thus, this Court voided the transfer of the national governments 87.67% share in PHILSECO to Philyard Holdings, Inc., and upheld the right of JG Summit, as the highest bidder, to take title to the said shares, viz:
12 13 14 15

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ordered to pay to APT its bid price of Two Billion Thirty Million Pesos (P2,030,000,000.00 ), less its bid deposit plus interests upon the finality of this Decision. In turn, APT is ordered to: (a) (b) (c) accept the said amount of P2,030,000,000.00 less bid deposit and interests from petitioner; execute a Stock Purchase Agreement with petitioner; cause the issuance in favor of petitioner of the certificates of stocks representing 87.6% of PHILSECOs total capitalization;

11 12 13 14 15

(d)

return to private respondent PHGI the amount of Two Billion One Hundred Thirty-One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,131,500,000.00); and cause the cancellation of the stock certificates issued to PHI.
16

(e) SO ORDERED.
[16]

In separate Motions for Reconsideration, [17] respondents submit three basic issues for our resolution: (1) Whether PHILSECO is a public utility; (2) Whether under the 1977 JVA, KAWASAKI can exercise its right of first refusal only up to 40% of the total capitalization of PHILSECO; and (3) Whether the right to top granted to KAWASAKI violates the principles of competitive bidding.
17

I. Whether PHILSECO is a Public Utility. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws and jurisprudence, we hold that PHILSECO is not a public utility for the following reasons: First. By nature, a shipyard is not a public utility. A public utility is a business or service engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service of public consequence such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service. [18] To constitute a public utility, the facility must be necessary for the maintenance of life and occupation of the residents. However, the fact that a business offers services or goods that promote public good and serve the interest of the public does not automatically make it a public utility. Public use is not synonymous with public interest. As its name indicates, the term public utility implies public use and service to the public. The principal determinative characteristic of a public utility is that of service to, or readiness to serve, an indefinite public or portion of the public as such which has a legal right to demand and receive its services or commodities. Stated otherwise, the owner or person in control of a public utility must have devoted it to such use that the public generally or that part of the public which has been served and has accepted the service, has the right to demand that use or service so long as it is continued, with reasonable efficiency and under proper charges. [19] Unlike a private enterprise which independently determines whom it will serve, a public utility holds out generally and may not refuse legitimate demand for service. [20] Thus, in Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board, [21] this Court defined public use, viz:
18 19 20 21

16 17 18 19 20 21

Public use means the same as use by the public. The essential feature of the public use is that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must look not only to the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed mode of doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit is merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be, in general, a right which the law compels the owner to give to the general public. It is not enough that the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not synonymous with public interest. The true criterion by which to judge the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by permission. [22] (emphasis supplied)
22

Applying the criterion laid down in Iloilo to the case at bar, it is crystal clear that a shipyard cannot be considered a public utility. A shipyard is a place or enclosure where ships are built or repaired. [23] Its nature dictates that it serves but a limited clientele whom it may choose to serve at its discretion. While it offers its facilities to whoever may wish to avail of its services, a shipyard is not legally obliged to render its services indiscriminately to the public. It has no legal obligation to render the services sought by each and every client. The fact that it publicly offers its services does not give the public a legal right to demand that such services be rendered.
23

There can be no disagreement that the shipbuilding and ship repair industry is imbued with public interest as it involves the maintenance of the seaworthiness of vessels dedicated to the transportation of either persons or goods. Nevertheless, the fact that a business is affected with public interest does not imply that it is under a duty to serve the public. While the business may be regulated for public good, the regulation cannot justify the classification of a purely private enterprise as a public utility. The legislature cannot, by its mere declaration, make something a public utility which is not in fact such; and a private business operated under private contracts with selected customers and not devoted to public use cannot, by legislative fiat or by order of a public service commission, be declared a public utility, since that would be taking private property for public use without just compensation, which cannot be done consistently with the due process clause. [24]
24

It is worthy to note that automobile and aircraft manufacturers, which are of similar nature to shipyards, are not considered public utilities despite the fact that their operations greatly impact on land and air transportation. The reason is simple. Unlike commodities or services traditionally regarded as public utilities such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service, automobile and aircraft manufacturing---and for that matter ship building and ship repair--- serve the public only incidentally.

22 23 24

Second. There is no law declaring a shipyard as a public utility. History provides us hindsight and hindsight ought to give us a better view of the intent of any law. The succession of laws affecting the status of shipyards ought not to obliterate, but rather, give us full picture of the intent of the legislature. The totality of the circumstances, including the contemporaneous interpretation accorded by the administrative bodies tasked with the enforcement of the law all lead to a singular conclusion: that shipyards are not public utilities. Since the enactment of Act No. 2307 which created the Public Utility Commission (PUC) until its repeal by Commonwealth Act No. 146, establishing the Public Service Commission (PSC), a shipyard, by legislative declaration, has been considered a public utility. [25] A Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) from the PSC to the effect that the operation of the said service and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner is required before any person or corporation may operate a shipyard. [26] In addition, such persons or corporations should abide by the citizenship requirement provided in Article XIII, section 8 of the 1935 Constitution, [27] viz:
25 26 27

Sec. 8. No franchise, certificate, or any other form or authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or other entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines, nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires. (emphasis supplied) To accelerate the development of shipbuilding and ship repair industry, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued P.D. No. 666 granting the following incentives: SECTION 1. Shipbuilding and ship repair yards duly registered with the Maritime Industry Authority shall be entitled to the following incentive benefits: (a) Exemption from import duties and taxes.- The importation of machinery, equipment and materials for shipbuilding, ship repair and/or alteration, including indirect import, as well as replacement and spare parts for the repair and overhaul of vessels such as steel plates, electrical machinery and electronic parts, shall be exempt from the payment of customs duty and compensating tax: Provided, however, That the Maritime Industry Authority certifies that the item or items imported are not produced locally in sufficient quantity and acceptable quality at reasonable prices, and that the importation is directly and actually needed and will be used exclusively for the construction, repair, alteration, or overhaul of merchant vessels, and other watercrafts; Provided, further, That if the above machinery, equipment, materials and spare parts
25 26 27

are sold to non-tax exempt persons or entities, the corresponding duties and taxes shall be paid by the original importer; Provided, finally, That local dealers and/or agents who sell machinery, equipment, materials and accessories to shipyards for shipbuilding and ship repair are entitled to tax credits, subject to approval by the total tariff duties and compensating tax paid for said machinery, equipment, materials and accessories. (b) Accelerated depreciation.- Industrial plant and equipment may, at the option of the shipbuilder and ship repairer, be depreciated for any number of years between five years and expected economic life. (c) Exemption from contractors percentage tax.- The gross receipts derived by shipbuilders and ship repairers from shipbuilding and ship repairing activities shall be exempt from the Contractors Tax provided in Section 91 of the National Internal Revenue Code during the first ten years from registration with the Maritime Industry Authority, provided that such registration is effected not later than the year 1990; Provided, That any and all amounts which would otherwise have been paid as contractors tax shall be set aside as a separate fund, to be known as Shipyard Development Fund, by the contractor for the purpose of expansion, modernization and/or improvement of the contractors own shipbuilding or ship repairing facilities; Provided, That, for this purpose, the contractor shall submit an annual statement of its receipts to the Maritime Industry Authority; and Provided, further, That any disbursement from such fund for any of the purposes hereinabove stated shall be subject to approval by the Maritime Industry Authority. In addition, P.D. No. 666 removed the shipbuilding and ship repair industry from the list of public utilities, thereby freeing the industry from the 60% citizenship requirement under the Constitution and from the need to obtain Certificate of Public Convenience pursuant to section 15 of C.A No. 146. Section 1 (d) of P.D. 666 reads: (d) Registration required but not as a Public Utility.- The business of constructing and repairing vessels or parts thereof shall not be considered a public utility and no Certificate of Public Convenience shall be required therefor. However, no shipyard, graving dock, marine railway or marine repair shop and no person or enterprise shall engage in construction and/or repair of any vessel, or any phase or part thereof, without a valid Certificate of Registration and license for this purpose from the Maritime Industry Authority, except those owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the Philippines or by foreign governments pursuant to a treaty or agreement. (emphasis supplied) Any law, decree, executive order, or rules and regulations inconsistent with P.D. No. 666 were repealed or modified accordingly. [28] Consequently, sections 13 (b) and 15 of C.A. No. 146 were repealed in so far as the former law included shipyards in the list of public utilities and required the certificate of public convenience for their operation. Simply stated, the repeal was due to irreconcilable inconsistency, and by definition, this kind of repeal falls under the category of an implied repeal. [29]
28 29

28 29

On April 28, 1983, Batas Pambansa Blg. 391, also known as the Investment Incentive Policy Act of 1983, was enacted. It laid down the general policy of the government to encourage private domestic and foreign investments in the various sectors of the economy, to wit: Sec. 2. Declaration of Investment Policy.- It is the policy of the State to encourage private domestic and foreign investments in industry, agriculture, mining and other sectors of the economy which shall: provide significant employment opportunities relative to the amount of the capital being invested; increase productivity of the land, minerals, forestry, aquatic and other resources of the country, and improve utilization of the products thereof; improve technical skills of the people employed in the enterprise; provide a foundation for the future development of the economy; accelerate development of less developed regions of the country; and result in increased volume and value of exports for the economy. It is the policy of the State to extend to projects which will significantly contribute to the attainment of these objectives, fiscal incentives without which said projects may not be established in the locales, number and/or pace required for optimum national economic development. Fiscal incentive systems shall be devised to compensate for market imperfections, reward performance of making contributions to economic development, cost-efficient and be simple to administer. The fiscal incentives shall be extended to stimulate establishment and assist initial operations of the enterprise, and shall terminate after a period of not more than 10 years from registration or start-up of operation unless a special period is otherwise stated. The foregoing declaration shall apply to all investment incentive schemes and in particular will supersede article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1789. (emphases supplied) With the new investment incentive regime, Batas Pambansa Blg. 391 repealed the following laws, viz: Sec. 20. The following provisions are hereby repealed: 1) 2.) Section 53, P.D. 463 (Mineral Resources Development Decree); Section 1, P.D. 666 (Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry); 3) 4) 5) Section 6, P.D. 1101 (Radioactive Minerals); LOI 508 extending P.D. 791 and P.D. 924 (Sugar); and The following articles of Presidential Decree 1789: 2, 18, 19, 22, 28, 30, 39, 49 (d), 62, and 77. Articles 45, 46 and 48 are hereby amended only with respect to domestic and export producers.

All other laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. All other incentive systems which are not in any way affected by the provisions of this Act may be restructured by the President so as to render them cost-efficient and to make them conform with the other policy guidelines in the declaration of policy provided in Section 2 of this Act. (emphasis supplied) From the language of the afore-quoted provision, the whole of P.D. No. 666, section 1 was expressly and categorically repealed. As a consequence, the provisions of C.A. No. 146, which were impliedly repealed by P.D. No. 666, section 1 were revived. [30] In other words, with the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 391, a shipyard reverted back to its status as a public utility and as such, requires a CPC for its operation.
30

The crux of the present controversy is the effect of the express repeal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 391 by Executive Order No. 226 issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino under her emergency powers. We rule that the express repeal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 391 by E.O. No. 226 did not revive Section 1 of P.D. No. 666. But more importantly, it also put a period to the existence of sections 13 (b) and 15 of C.A. No. 146. It bears emphasis that sections 13 (b) and 15 of C.A. No. 146, as originally written, owed their continued existence to Batas Pambansa Blg. 391. Had the latter not repealed P.D. No. 666, the former should have been modified accordingly and shipyards effectively removed from the list of public utilities. Ergo, with the express repeal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 391 by E.O. No. 226, the revival of sections 13 (b) and 15 of C.A. No. 146 had no more leg to stand on. A law that has been expressly repealed ceases to exist and becomes inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes effective. [31] Hence, there is simply no basis in the conclusion that shipyards remain to be a public utility. A repealed statute cannot be the basis for classifying shipyards as public utilities.
31

In view of the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than to hold that a shipyard is not a pubic utility. A shipyard has been considered a public utility merely by legislative declaration. Absent this declaration, there is no more reason why it should continuously be regarded as such. The fact that the legislature did not clearly and unambiguously express its intention to include shipyards in the list of public utilities indicates that that it did not intend to do so. Thus, a shipyard reverts back to its status as non-public utility prior to the enactment of the Public Service Law. This interpretation is in accord with the uniform interpretation placed upon it by the Board of Investments (BOI), which was entrusted by the legislature with the preparation of annual Investment Priorities Plan (IPPs). The BOI has consistently classified shipyards as part of the manufacturing sector and not of the public utilities sector. The enactment of Batas Pambansa
30 31

Blg. 391 did not alter the treatment of the BOI on shipyards. It has been, as at present, classified as part of the manufacturing and not of the public utilities sector. [32]
32

Furthermore, of the 441 Ship Building and Ship Repair (SBSR) entities registered with the MARINA, [33] none appears to have an existing franchise. If we continue to hold that a shipyard is a pubic utility, it is a necessary consequence that all these entities should have obtained a franchise as was the rule prior to the enactment of P.D. No. 666. But MARINA remains without authority, pursuant to P.D. No. 474 [34] to issue franchises for the operation of shipyards. Surely,
33 34

the legislature did not intend to create a vacuum by continuously treating a shipyard as a public utility without giving MARINA the power to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) as required by section 15 of C.A. No. 146. II. Whether under the 1977 Joint Venture Agreement, KAWASAKI can purchase only a maximum of 40% of PHILSECOs total capitalization. A careful reading of the 1977 Joint Venture Agreement reveals that there is nothing that prevents KAWASAKI from acquiring more than 40% of PHILSECOs total capitalization. Section 1 of the 1977 JVA states: 1.3 The authorized capital stock of Philseco shall be P330 million. The parties shall thereafter increase their subscription in Philseco as may be necessary and as called by the Board of Directors, maintaining a proportion of 60%-40% for NIDC and KAWASAKI respectively, up to a total subscribed and paid-up capital stock of P312 million. 1.4 Neither party shall sell, transfer or assign all or any part of its interest in SNS [renamed PHILSECO] to any third party without giving the other under the same terms the right of first refusal. This provision shall not apply if the transferee is a corporation owned and controlled by the GOVERMENT [of the Philippines] or by a Kawasaki affiliate. 1.5 The By-Laws of SNS [PHILSECO] shall grant the parties preemptive rights to unissued shares of SNS [PHILSECO]. [35]
35

Under section 1.3, the parties agreed to the amount of P330 million as the total capitalization of their joint venture. There was no mention of the amount of their initial subscription. What is clear is that they are to infuse the needed capital from time to time until the total subscribed and paid-up capital reaches P312 million. The phrase maintaining a proportion of 60%-40% refers
32 33 34 35

to their respective share of the burden each time the Board of Directors decides to increase the subscription to reach the target paid-up capital of P312 million. It does not bind the parties to maintain the sharing scheme all throughout the existence of their partnership. The parties likewise agreed to arm themselves with protective mechanisms to preserve their respective interests in the partnership in the event that (a) one party decides to sell its shares to third parties; and (b) new Philseco shares are issued. Anent the first situation, the non-selling party is given the right of first refusal under section 1.4 to have a preferential right to buy or to refuse the selling partys shares. The right of first refusal is meant to protect the original or remaining joint venturer(s) or shareholder(s) from the entry of third persons who are not acceptable to it as co-venturer(s) or co-shareholder(s). The joint venture between the Philippine Government and KAWASAKI is in the nature of a partnership [36] which, unlike an ordinary corporation, is based on delectus personae. [37] No one can become a member of the partnership association without the consent of all the other associates. The right of first refusal thus ensures that the parties are given control over who may become a new partner in substitution of or in addition to the original partners. Should the selling partner decide to dispose all its shares, the non-selling partner may acquire all these shares and terminate the partnership. No person or corporation can be compelled to remain or to continue the partnership. Of course, this presupposes that there are no other restrictions in the maximum allowable share that the nonselling partner may acquire such as the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership in public utility. The theory that KAWASAKI can acquire, as a maximum, only 40% of PHILSECOs shares is correct only if a shipyard is a public utility. In such instance, the non-selling partner who is an alien can acquire only a maximum of 40% of the total capitalization of a public utility despite the grant of first refusal. The partners cannot, by mere agreement, avoid the constitutional proscription. But as afore-discussed, PHILSECO is not a public utility and no other restriction is present that would limit the right of KAWASAKI to purchase the Governments share to 40% of Philsecos total capitalization.
36 37

Furthermore, the phrase under the same terms in section 1.4 cannot be given an interpretation that would limit the right of KAWASAKI to purchase PHILSECO shares only to the extent of its original proportionate contribution of 40% to the total capitalization of the PHILSECO. Taken together with the whole of section 1.4, the phrase under the same terms means that a partner to the joint venture that decides to sell its shares to a third party shall make a similar offer to the non-selling partner. The selling partner cannot make a different or a more onerous offer to the non-selling partner. The exercise of first refusal presupposes that the non-selling partner is aware of the terms of the conditions attendant to the sale for it to have a guided choice. While the right of first refusal protects the non-selling partner from the entry of third persons, it cannot also deprive the other partner the right to sell its shares to third persons if, under the same offer, it does not buy the shares.

36 37

Apart from the right of first refusal, the parties also have preemptive rights under section 1.5 in the unissued shares of Philseco. Unlike the former, this situation does not contemplate transfer of a partners shares to third parties but the issuance of new Philseco shares. The grant of preemptive rights preserves the proportionate shares of the original partners so as not to dilute their respective interests with the issuance of the new shares. Unlike the right of first refusal, a preemptive right gives a partner a preferential right over the newly issued shares only to the extent that it retains its original proportionate share in the joint venture. The case at bar does not concern the issuance of new shares but the transfer of a partners share in the joint venture. Verily, the operative protective mechanism is the right of first refusal which does not impose any limitation in the maximum shares that the non-selling partner may acquire. III. Whether the right to top granted to KAWASAKI in exchange for its right of first refusal violates the principles of competitive bidding. We also hold that the right to top granted to KAWASAKI and exercised by private respondent did not violate the rules of competitive bidding. The word bidding in its comprehensive sense means making an offer or an invitation to prospective contractors whereby the government manifests its intention to make proposals for the purpose of supplies, materials and equipment for official business or public use, or for public works or repair. [38] The three principles of public bidding are: (1) the offer to the public; (2) an opportunity for competition; and (3) a basis for comparison of bids. [39] As long as these three principles are complied with, the public bidding can be considered valid and legal. It is not necessary that the highest bid be automatically accepted. The bidding rules may specify other conditions or the bidding process be subjected to certain reservation or qualification such as when the owner reserves to himself openly at the time of the sale the right to bid upon the property, or openly announces a price below which the property will not be sold. Hence, where the seller reserves the right to refuse to accept any bid made, a binding sale is not consummated between the seller and the bidder until the seller accepts the bid. Furthermore, where a right is reserved in the seller to reject any and all bids received, the owner may exercise the right even after the auctioneer has accepted a bid, and this applies to the auction of public as well as private property. [40] Thus:
38 39 40

It is a settled rule that where the invitation to bid contains a reservation for the Government to reject any or all bids, the lowest or the highest bidder, as the case may be, is not entitled to an award as a matter of right for it does not become a ministerial duty of the Government to make such an award. Thus, it has been held that where the right to reject is so reserved, the lowest bid or any bid for that matter may be rejected on a mere technicality, that all bids may be rejected, even if arbitrarily and unwisely, or under a mistake, and that in the exercise of a sound
38 39 40

discretion, the award may be made to another than the lowest bidder. And so, where the Government as advertiser, availing itself of that right, makes its choice in rejecting any or all bids, the losing bidder has no cause to complain nor right to dispute that choice, unless an unfairness or injustice is shown. Accordingly, he has no ground of action to compel the Government to award the contract in his favor, nor compel it to accept his bid. [41]
41

In the instant case, the sale of the Government shares in PHILSECO was publicly known. All interested bidders were welcomed. The basis for comparing the bids were laid down. All bids were accepted sealed and were opened and read in the presence of the COAs official representative and before all interested bidders. The only question that remains is whether or not the existence of KAWASAKIs right to top destroys the essence of competitive bidding so as to say that the bidders did not have an opportunity for competition. We hold that it does not. The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing. This means that all qualified bidders have an equal chance of winning the auction through their bids. In the case at bar, all of the bidders were exposed to the same risk and were subjected to the same condition, i.e., the existence of KAWASAKIs right to top. Under the ASBR, the Government expressly reserved the right to reject any or all bids, and manifested its intention not to accept the highest bid should KAWASAKI decide to exercise its right to top under the ABSR. This reservation or qualification was made known to the bidders in a pre-bidding conference held on September 28, 1993. They all expressly accepted this condition in writing without any qualification. Furthermore, when the Committee on Privatization notified petitioner of the approval of the sale of the National Government shares of stock in PHILSECO, it specifically stated that such approval was subject to the right of KAWASAKI Heavy Industries, Inc./Philyards Holdings, Inc. to top JGSMIs bid by 5% as specified in the bidding rules. Clearly, the approval of the sale was a conditional one. Since Philyards eventually exercised its right to top petitioners bid by 5%, the sale was not consummated. Parenthetically, it cannot be argued that the existence of the right to top set for naught the entire public bidding. Had Philyards Holdings, Inc. failed or refused to exercise its right to top, the sale between the petitioner and the National Government would have been consummated. In like manner, the existence of the right to top cannot be likened to a second bidding, which is countenanced, except when there is failure to bid as when there is only one bidder or none at all. A prohibited second bidding presupposes that based on the terms and conditions of the sale, there is already a highest bidder with the right to demand that the seller accept its bid. In the instant case, the highest bidder was well aware that the acceptance of its bid was conditioned upon the non-exercise of the right to top. To be sure, respondents did not circumvent the requirements for bidding by granting KAWASAKI, a non-bidder, the right to top the highest bidder. The fact that KAWASAKIs nominee to exercise the right to top has among its stockholders some losing bidders cannot also be deemed unfair. It must be emphasized that none of the parties questions the existence of KAWASAKIs right of first refusal, which is concededly the basis for the grant of the right to top. Under KAWASAKIs right of first refusal, the National Government is under the obligation to give preferential right to KAWASAKI in the event it decides to sell its shares in PHILSECO. It has to offer to
41

KAWASAKI the shares and give it the option to buy or refuse under the same terms for which it is willing to sell the said shares to third parties. KAWASAKI is not a mere non-bidder. It is a partner in the joint venture; the incidents of which are governed by the law on contracts and on partnership. It is true that properties of the National Government, as a rule, may be sold only after a public bidding is held. Public bidding is the accepted method in arriving at a fair and reasonable price and ensures that overpricing, favoritism and other anomalous practices are eliminated or minimized. [42] But the requirement for public bidding does not negate the exercise of the right of first refusal. In fact, public bidding is an essential first step in the exercise of the right of first refusal because it is only after the public bidding that the terms upon which the Government may be said to be willing to sell its shares to third parties may be known. It is only after the public bidding that the Government will have a basis with which to offer KAWASAKI the option to buy or forego the shares.
42

Assuming that the parties did not swap KAWASAKIs right of first refusal with the right to top, KAWASAKI would have been able to buy the National Governments shares in PHILSECO under the same terms as offered by the highest bidder. Stated otherwise, by exercising its right of first refusal, KAWASAKI could have bought the shares for only P2.03 billion and not the higher amount of P2.1315 billion. There is, thus, no basis in the submission that the right to top unfairly favored KAWASAKI. In fact, with the right to top, KAWASAKI stands to pay higher than it should had it settled with its right of first refusal. The obvious beneficiary of the scheme is the National Government. If at all, the obvious consideration for the exchange of the right of first refusal with the right to top is that KAWASAKI can name a nominee, which it is a shareholder, to exercise the right to top. This is a valid contractual stipulation; the right to top is an assignable right and both parties are aware of the full legal consequences of its exercise. As aforesaid, all bidders were aware of the existence of the right to top, and its possible effects on the result of the public bidding was fully disclosed to them. The petitioner, thus, cannot feign ignorance nor can it be allowed to repudiate its acts and question the proceedings it had fully adhered to. [43]
43

The fact that the losing bidder, Keppel Consortium (composed of Keppel, SM Group, Insular Life Assurance, Mitsui and ICTSI), has joined Philyards in the latters effort to raise P2.131 billion necessary in exercising the right to top is not contrary to law, public policy or public morals. There is nothing in the ASBR that bars the losing bidders from joining either the winning bidder (should the right to top is not exercised) or KAWASAKI/PHI (should it exercise its right to top as it did), to raise the purchase price. The petitioner did not allege, nor was it shown by competent evidence, that the participation of the losing bidders in the public bidding was done with fraudulent intent. Absent any proof of fraud, the formation by Philyards of a consortium is legitimate in a free enterprise system. The appellate court is thus correct in holding the petitioner estopped from questioning the validity of the transfer of the National Governments shares in PHILSECO to respondent.
42 43

Finally, no factual basis exists to support the view that the drafting of the ASBR was illegal because no prior approval was given by the COA for it, specifically the provision on the right to top the highest bidder and that the public auction on December 2, 1993 was not witnessed by a COA representative. No evidence was proffered to prove these allegations and the Court cannot make legal conclusions out of mere allegations. Regularity in the performance of official duties is presumed [44] and in the absence of competent evidence to rebut this presumption, this Court is duty bound to uphold this presumption.
44

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The impugned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, and Corona, JJ., concur. Tinga, J., please see separate opinion. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 124293 January 31, 2005

J.G. SUMMIT HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, its Chairman and Members; ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST; and PHILYARDS HOLDINGS, INC., respondents. RESOLUTION PUNO, J.: For resolution before this Court are two motions filed by the petitioner, J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc. for reconsideration of our Resolution dated September 24, 2003 and to elevate this case to the Court En Banc. The petitioner questions the Resolution which reversed our Decision of November 20, 2000, which in turn reversed and set aside a Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 18, 1995. I. Facts The undisputed facts of the case, as set forth in our Resolution of September 24, 2003, are as follows:
44

On January 27, 1997, the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a government corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Kobe, Japan (KAWASAKI) for the construction, operation and management of the Subic National Shipyard, Inc. (SNS) which subsequently became the Philippine Shipyard and Engineering Corporation (PHILSECO). Under the JVA, the NIDC and KAWASAKI will contribute P330 million for the capitalization of PHILSECO in the proportion of 60%-40% respectively. One of its salient features is the grant to the parties of the right of first refusal should either of them decide to sell, assign or transfer its interest in the joint venture, viz: 1.4 Neither party shall sell, transfer or assign all or any part of its interest in SNS [PHILSECO] to any third party without giving the other under the same terms the right of first refusal. This provision shall not apply if the transferee is a corporation owned or controlled by the GOVERNMENT or by a KAWASAKI affiliate. On November 25, 1986, NIDC transferred all its rights, title and interest in PHILSECO to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Such interests were subsequently transferred to the National Government pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14. On December 8, 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 establishing the Committee on Privatization (COP) and the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to take title to, and possession of, conserve, manage and dispose of non-performing assets of the National Government. Thereafter, on February 27, 1987, a trust agreement was entered into between the National Government and the APT wherein the latter was named the trustee of the National Government's share in PHILSECO. In 1989, as a result of a quasi-reorganization of PHILSECO to settle its huge obligations to PNB, the National Government's shareholdings in PHILSECO increased to 97.41% thereby reducing KAWASAKI's shareholdings to 2.59%. In the interest of the national economy and the government, the COP and the APT deemed it best to sell the National Government's share in PHILSECO to private entities. After a series of negotiations between the APT and KAWASAKI, they agreed that the latter's right of first refusal under the JVA be "exchanged" for the right to top by five percent (5%) the highest bid for the said shares. They further agreed that KAWASAKI would be entitled to name a company in which it was a stockholder, which could exercise the right to top. On September 7, 1990, KAWASAKI informed APT that Philyards Holdings, Inc. (PHI)1 would exercise its right to top. At the pre-bidding conference held on September 18, 1993, interested bidders were given copies of the JVA between NIDC and KAWASAKI, and of the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the National Government's 87.6% equity share in PHILSECO. The provisions of the ASBR were explained to the interested bidders who were notified that the bidding would be held on December 2, 1993. A portion of the ASBR reads: 1.0 The subject of this Asset Privatization Trust (APT) sale through public bidding is the National Government's equity in PHILSECO consisting of 896,869,942 shares of stock (representing 87.67% of PHILSECO's outstanding capital stock), which will be sold as a whole block in accordance with the rules herein enumerated. xxx xxx xxx

2.0 The highest bid, as well as the buyer, shall be subject to the final approval of both the APT Board of Trustees and the Committee on Privatization (COP). 2.1 APT reserves the right in its sole discretion, to reject any or all bids. 3.0 This public bidding shall be on an Indicative Price Bidding basis. The Indicative price set for the National Government's 87.67% equity in PHILSECO is PESOS: ONE BILLION THREE HUNDRED MILLION (P1,300,000,000.00). xxx xxx xxx 6.0 The highest qualified bid will be submitted to the APT Board of Trustees at its regular meeting following the bidding, for the purpose of determining whether or not it should be endorsed by the APT Board of Trustees to the COP, and the latter approves the same. The APT shall advise Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or its nominee, [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc., that the highest bid is acceptable to the National Government. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. shall then have a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of such advice from APT within which to exercise their "Option to Top the Highest Bid" by offering a bid equivalent to the highest bid plus five (5%) percent thereof. 6.1 Should Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. exercise their "Option to Top the Highest Bid," they shall so notify the APT about such exercise of their option and deposit with APT the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the highest bid plus five percent (5%) thereof within the thirty (30)-day period mentioned in paragraph 6.0 above. APT will then serve notice upon Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. declaring them as the preferred bidder and they shall have a period of ninety (90) days from the receipt of the APT's notice within which to pay the balance of their bid price. 6.2 Should Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. fail to exercise their "Option to Top the Highest Bid" within the thirty (30)-day period, APT will declare the highest bidder as the winning bidder. xxx xxx xxx 12.0 The bidder shall be solely responsible for examining with appropriate care these rules, the official bid forms, including any addenda or amendments thereto issued during the bidding period. The bidder shall likewise be responsible for informing itself with respect to any and all conditions concerning the PHILSECO Shares which may, in any manner, affect the bidder's proposal. Failure on the part of the bidder to so examine and inform itself shall be its sole risk and no relief for error or omission will be given by APT or COP. . . . At the public bidding on the said date, petitioner J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc.2 submitted a bid of Two Billion and Thirty Million Pesos (P2,030,000,000.00) with an acknowledgment of KAWASAKI/[PHILYARDS'] right to top, viz:

4. I/We understand that the Committee on Privatization (COP) has up to thirty (30) days to act on APT's recommendation based on the result of this bidding. Should the COP approve the highest bid, APT shall advise Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or its nominee, [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. that the highest bid is acceptable to the National Government. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. and/or [PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. shall then have a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of such advice from APT within which to exercise their "Option to Top the Highest Bid" by offering a bid equivalent to the highest bid plus five (5%) percent thereof. As petitioner was declared the highest bidder, the COP approved the sale on December 3, 1993 "subject to the right of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc./[PHILYARDS] Holdings, Inc. to top JGSMI's bid by 5% as specified in the bidding rules." On December 29, 1993, petitioner informed APT that it was protesting the offer of PHI to top its bid on the grounds that: (a) the KAWASAKI/PHI consortium composed of KAWASAKI, [PHILYARDS], Mitsui, Keppel, SM Group, ICTSI and Insular Life violated the ASBR because the last four (4) companies were the losing bidders thereby circumventing the law and prejudicing the weak winning bidder; (b) only KAWASAKI could exercise the right to top; (c) giving the same option to top to PHI constituted unwarranted benefit to a third party; (d) no right of first refusal can be exercised in a public bidding or auction sale; and (e) the JG Summit consortium was not estopped from questioning the proceedings. On February 2, 1994, petitioner was notified that PHI had fully paid the balance of the purchase price of the subject bidding. On February 7, 1994, the APT notified petitioner that PHI had exercised its option to top the highest bid and that the COP had approved the same on January 6, 1994. On February 24, 1994, the APT and PHI executed a Stock Purchase Agreement. Consequently, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus under G.R. No. 114057. On May 11, 1994, said petition was referred to the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied the same for lack of merit. It ruled that the petition for mandamus was not the proper remedy to question the constitutionality or legality of the right of first refusal and the right to top that was exercised by KAWASAKI/PHI, and that the matter must be brought "by the proper party in the proper forum at the proper time and threshed out in a full blown trial." The Court of Appeals further ruled that the right of first refusal and the right to top are prima facie legal and that the petitioner, "by participating in the public bidding, with full knowledge of the right to top granted to KAWASAKI/[PHILYARDS] isestopped from questioning the validity of the award given to [PHILYARDS] after the latter exercised the right to top and had paid in full the purchase price of the subject shares, pursuant to the ASBR." Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision which was denied on March 15, 1996. Petitioner thus filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court. On November 20, 2000, this Court rendered x x x [a] Decision ruling among others that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition on the sole ground of the impropriety of the special civil action of mandamus because the petition was also one of certiorari. It further ruled that a shipyard like PHILSECO is a public utility whose capitalization must be sixty percent (60%) Filipino-owned. Consequently, the right to top granted to KAWASAKI under the

Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the sale of the 87.67% equity of the National Government in PHILSECO is illegal not only because it violates the rules on competitive bidding but more so, because it allows foreign corporations to own more than 40% equity in the shipyard. It also held that "although the petitioner had the opportunity to examine the ASBR before it participated in the bidding, it cannot be estopped from questioning the unconstitutional, illegal and inequitable provisions thereof." Thus, this Court voided the transfer of the national government's 87.67% share in PHILSECO to Philyard[s] Holdings, Inc., and upheld the right of JG Summit, as the highest bidder, to take title to the said shares, viz: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ordered to pay to APT its bid price of Two Billion Thirty Million Pesos (P2,030,000,000.00), less its bid deposit plus interests upon the finality of this Decision. In turn, APT is ordered to: (a) accept the said amount of P2,030,000,000.00 less bid deposit and interests from petitioner; (b) execute a Stock Purchase Agreement with petitioner; (c) cause the issuance in favor of petitioner of the certificates of stocks representing 87.6% of PHILSECO's total capitalization; (d) return to private respondent PHGI the amount of Two Billion One Hundred ThirtyOne Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,131,500,000.00); and (e) cause the cancellation of the stock certificates issued to PHI. SO ORDERED. In separate Motions for Reconsideration, respondents submit[ted] three basic issues for x x x resolution: (1) Whether PHILSECO is a public utility; (2) Whether under the 1977 JVA, KAWASAKI can exercise its right of first refusal only up to 40% of the total capitalization of PHILSECO; and (3) Whether the right to top granted to KAWASAKI violates the principles of competitive bidding.3 (citations omitted) In a Resolution dated September 24, 2003, this Court ruled in favor of the respondents. On the first issue, we held that Philippine Shipyard and Engineering Corporation (PHILSECO) is not a public utility, as by nature, a shipyard is not a public utility4 and that no law declares a shipyard to be a public utility.5 On the second issue, we found nothing in the 1977 Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) which prevents Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Kobe, Japan (KAWASAKI) from acquiring more than 40% of PHILSECOs total capitalization. 6 On the final issue, we held that the right to top granted to KAWASAKI in exchange for its right of first refusal did not violate the principles of competitive bidding.7 On October 20, 2003, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration8 and a Motion to Elevate This Case to the Court En Banc.9 Public respondents Committee on Privatization (COP) and

Asset Privatization Trust (APT), and private respondent Philyards Holdings, Inc. (PHILYARDS) filed their Comments on J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc.s (JG Summits) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Elevate This Case to the Court En Banc on January 29, 2004 and February 3, 2004, respectively. II. Issues Based on the foregoing, the relevant issues to resolve to end this litigation are the following: 1. Whether there are sufficient bases to elevate the case at bar to the Court en banc. 2. Whether the motion for reconsideration raises any new matter or cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of this Courts Resolution of September 24, 2003. Motion to Elevate this Case to the Court En Banc The petitioner prays for the elevation of the case to the Court en banc on the following grounds: 1. The main issue of the propriety of the bidding process involved in the present case has been confused with the policy issue of the supposed fate of the shipping industry which has never been an issue that is determinative of this case.10 2. The present case may be considered under the Supreme Court Resolution dated February 23, 1984 which included among en banc cases those involving a novel question of law and those where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed.11 3. There was clear executive interference in the judicial functions of the Court when the Honorable Jose Isidro Camacho, Secretary of Finance, forwarded to Chief Justice Davide, a memorandum dated November 5, 2001, attaching a copy of the Foreign Chambers Report dated October 17, 2001, which matter was placed in the agenda of the Court and noted by it in a formal resolution dated November 28, 2001.12 Opposing J.G. Summits motion to elevate the case en banc, PHILYARDS points out the petitioners inconsistency in previously opposing PHILYARDS Motion to Refer the Case to the Court En Banc. PHILYARDS contends that J.G. Summit should now be estopped from asking that the case be referred to the Court en banc. PHILYARDS further contends that the Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of its divisions may be appealed citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89 dated February 7, 1989.13 PHILYARDS also alleges that there is no novel question of law involved in the present case as the assailed Resolution was based on well-settled jurisprudence. Likewise, PHILYARDS stresses that the Resolution was merely an outcome of the motions for reconsideration filed by it and the COP and APT and is "consistent with the inherent power of courts to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. (Rule 135, sec. 5)"14 Private

respondent belittles the petitioners allegations regarding the change in ponente and the alleged executive interference as shown by former Secretary of Finance Jose Isidro Camachos memorandum dated November 5, 2001 arguing that these do not justify a referral of the present case to the Court en banc. In insisting that its Motion to Elevate This Case to the Court En Banc should be granted, J.G. Summit further argued that: its Opposition to the Office of the Solicitor Generals Motion to Refer is different from its own Motion to Elevate; different grounds are invoked by the two motions; there was unwarranted "executive interference"; and the change in ponente is merely noted in asserting that this case should be decided by the Court en banc.15 We find no merit in petitioners contention that the propriety of the bidding process involved in the present case has been confused with the policy issue of the fate of the shipping industry which, petitioner maintains, has never been an issue that is determinative of this case. The Courts Resolution of September 24, 2003 reveals a clear and definitive ruling on the propriety of the bidding process. In discussing whether the right to top granted to KAWASAKI in exchange for its right of first refusal violates the principles of competitive bidding, we made an exhaustive discourse on the rules and principles of public bidding and whether they were complied with in the case at bar.16 This Court categorically ruled on the petitioners argument that PHILSECO, as a shipyard, is a public utility which should maintain a 60%-40% Filipinoforeign equity ratio, as it was a pivotal issue. In doing so, we recognized the impact of our ruling on the shipbuilding industry which was beyond avoidance.17 We reject petitioners argument that the present case may be considered under the Supreme Court Resolution dated February 23, 1984 which included among en banc cases those involving a novel question of law and those where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed. The case was resolved based on basic principles of the right of first refusal in commercial law and estoppel in civil law. Contractual obligations arising from rights of first refusal are not new in this jurisdiction and have been recognized in numerous cases.18 Estoppel is too known a civil law concept to require an elongated discussion. Fundamental principles on public bidding were likewise used to resolve the issues raised by the petitioner. To be sure, petitioner leans on the right to top in a public bidding in arguing that the case at bar involves a novel issue. We are not swayed. The right to top was merely a condition or a reservation made in the bidding rules which was fully disclosed to all bidding parties. In Bureau Veritas, represented by Theodor H. Hunermann v. Office of the President, et al., 19 we dealt with this conditionality, viz: x x x It must be stressed, as held in the case of A.C. Esguerra & Sons v. Aytona, et al., (L-18751, 28 April 1962, 4 SCRA 1245), that in an "invitation to bid, there is a condition imposed upon the bidders to the effect that the bidding shall be subject to the right of the government to reject any and all bids subject to its discretion. In the case at bar, the government has made its choice and unless an unfairness or injustice is shown, the losing bidders have no cause to complain nor right to dispute that choice. This is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction and elsewhere."

The discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is vested in the Government agencies entrusted with that function. The discretion given to the authorities on this matter is of such wide latitude that the Courts will not interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to a fraudulent award (Jalandoni v. NARRA, 108 Phil. 486 [1960]). x x x The exercise of this discretion is a policy decision that necessitates prior inquiry, investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation. This task can best be discharged by the Government agencies concerned, not by the Courts. The role of the Courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of the Government has transgressed its constitutional boundaries. But the Courts will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, it strays into the realm of policy decision-making. It is only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion that the Courts will set aside the award of a contract made by a government entity. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power (Filinvest Credit Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. 65935, 30 September 1988, 166 SCRA 155). The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as to act at all in contemplation of law, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility (Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc., et al[.], L-40867, 26 July 1988, 163 SCRA 489). The facts in this case do not indicate any such grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents when they awarded the CISS contract to Respondent SGS. In the "Invitation to Prequalify and Bid" (Annex "C," supra), the CISS Committee made an express reservation of the right of the Government to "reject any or all bids or any part thereof or waive any defects contained thereon and accept an offer most advantageous to the Government." It is a well-settled rule that where such reservation is made in an Invitation to Bid, the highest or lowest bidder, as the case may be, is not entitled to an award as a matter of right (C & C Commercial Corp. v. Menor, L-28360, 27 January 1983, 120 SCRA 112). Even the lowest Bid or any Bid may be rejected or, in the exercise of sound discretion, the award may be made to another than the lowest bidder (A.C. Esguerra & Sons v. Aytona, supra, citing 43 Am. Jur., 788). (emphases supplied)1awphi1.nt Like the condition in the Bureau Veritas case, the right to top was a condition imposed by the government in the bidding rules which was made known to all parties. It was a condition imposed on all bidders equally, based on the APTs exercise of its discretion in deciding on how best to privatize the governments shares in PHILSECO. It was not a whimsical or arbitrary condition plucked from the ether and inserted in the bidding rules but a condition which the APT approved as the best way the government could comply with its contractual obligations to KAWASAKI under the JVA and its mandate of getting the most advantageous deal for the government. The right to top had its history in the mutual right of first refusal in the JVA and was reached by agreement of the government and KAWASAKI. Further, there is no "executive interference" in the functions of this Court by the mere filing of a memorandum by Secretary of Finance Jose Isidro Camacho. The memorandum was merely "noted" to acknowledge its filing. It had no further legal significance. Notably too, the assailed

Resolution dated September 24, 2003 was decided unanimously by the Special First Division in favor of the respondents. Again, we emphasize that a decision or resolution of a Division is that of the Supreme Court20 and the Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.21 For all the foregoing reasons, we find no basis to elevate this case to the Court en banc. Motion for Reconsideration Three principal arguments were raised in the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. First, that a fair resolution of the case should be based on contract law, not on policy considerations; the contracts do not authorize the right to top to be derived from the right of first refusal.22 Second, that neither the right of first refusal nor the right to top can be legally exercised by the consortium which is not the proper party granted such right under either the JVA or the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR).23 Third, that the maintenance of the 60%-40% relationship between the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC) and KAWASAKI arises from contract and from the Constitution because PHILSECO is a landholding corporation and need not be a public utility to be bound by the 60%-40% constitutional limitation.24 On the other hand, private respondent PHILYARDS asserts that J.G. Summit has not been able to show compelling reasons to warrant a reconsideration of the Decision of the Court.25 PHILYARDS denies that the Decision is based mainly on policy considerations and points out that it is premised on principles governing obligations and contracts and corporate law such as the rule requiring respect for contractual stipulations, upholding rights of first refusal, and recognizing the assignable nature of contracts rights.26 Also, the ruling that shipyards are not public utilities relies on established case law and fundamental rules of statutory construction. PHILYARDS stresses that KAWASAKIs right of first refusal or even the right to top is not limited to the 40% equity of the latter.27 On the landholding issue raised by J.G. Summit, PHILYARDS emphasizes that this is a non-issue and even involves a question of fact. Even assuming that this Court can take cognizance of such question of fact even without the benefit of a trial, PHILYARDS opines that landholding by PHILSECO at the time of the bidding is irrelevant because what is essential is that ultimately a qualified entity would eventually hold PHILSECOs real estate properties.28 Further, given the assignable nature of the right of first refusal, any applicable nationality restrictions, including landholding limitations, would not affect the right of first refusal itself, but only the manner of its exercise.29 Also, PHILYARDS argues that if this Court takes cognizance of J.G. Summits allegations of fact regarding PHILSECOs landholding, it must also recognize PHILYARDS assertions that PHILSECOs landholdings were sold to another corporation.30 As regards the right of first refusal, private respondent explains that KAWASAKIs reduced shareholdings (from 40% to 2.59%) did not translate to a deprivation or loss of its contractually granted right of first refusal.31 Also, the bidding was valid because PHILYARDS exercised the right to top and it was of no moment that losing bidders later joined PHILYARDS in raising the purchase price.32

In cadence with the private respondent PHILYARDS, public respondents COP and APT contend: 1. The conversion of the right of first refusal into a right to top by 5% does not violate any provision in the JVA between NIDC and KAWASAKI. 2. PHILSECO is not a public utility and therefore not governed by the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership. 3. The petitioner is legally estopped from assailing the validity of the proceedings of the public bidding as it voluntarily submitted itself to the terms of the ASBR which included the provision on the right to top. 4. The right to top was exercised by PHILYARDS as the nominee of KAWASAKI and the fact that PHILYARDS formed a consortium to raise the required amount to exercise the right to top the highest bid by 5% does not violate the JVA or the ASBR. 5. The 60%-40% Filipino-foreign constitutional requirement for the acquisition of lands does not apply to PHILSECO because as admitted by petitioner itself, PHILSECO no longer owns real property. 6. Petitioners motion to elevate the case to the Court en banc is baseless and would only delay the termination of this case.33 In a Consolidated Comment dated March 8, 2004, J.G. Summit countered the arguments of the public and private respondents in this wise: 1. The award by the APT of 87.67% shares of PHILSECO to PHILYARDS with losing bidders through the exercise of a right to top, which is contrary to law and the constitution is null and void for being violative of substantive due process and the abuse of right provision in the Civil Code. a. The bidders[] right to top was actually exercised by losing bidders. b. The right to top or the right of first refusal cannot co-exist with a genuine competitive bidding. c. The benefits derived from the right to top were unwarranted. 2. The landholding issue has been a legitimate issue since the start of this case but is shamelessly ignored by the respondents. a. The landholding issue is not a non-issue. b. The landholding issue does not pose questions of fact.

c. That PHILSECO owned land at the time that the right of first refusal was agreed upon and at the time of the bidding are most relevant. d. Whether a shipyard is a public utility is not the core issue in this case. 3. Fraud and bad faith attend the alleged conversion of an inexistent right of first refusal to the right to top. a. The history behind the birth of the right to top shows fraud and bad faith. b. The right of first refusal was, indeed, "effectively useless." 4. Petitioner is not legally estopped to challenge the right to top in this case. a. Estoppel is unavailing as it would stamp validity to an act that is prohibited by law or against public policy. b. Deception was patent; the right to top was an attractive nuisance. c. The 10% bid deposit was placed in escrow. J.G. Summits insistence that the right to top cannot be sourced from the right of first refusal is not new and we have already ruled on the issue in our Resolution of September 24, 2003. We upheld the mutual right of first refusal in the JVA.34 We also ruled that nothing in the JVA prevents KAWASAKI from acquiring more than 40% of PHILSECOs total capitalization.35 Likewise, nothing in the JVA or ASBR bars the conversion of the right of first refusal to the right to top. In sum, nothing new and of significance in the petitioners pleading warrants a reconsideration of our ruling. Likewise, we already disposed of the argument that neither the right of first refusal nor the right to top can legally be exercised by the consortium which is not the proper party granted such right under either the JVA or the ASBR. Thus, we held: The fact that the losing bidder, Keppel Consortium (composed of Keppel, SM Group, Insular Life Assurance, Mitsui and ICTSI), has joined PHILYARDS in the latter's effort to raise P2.131 billion necessary in exercising the right to top is not contrary to law, public policy or public morals. There is nothing in the ASBR that bars the losing bidders from joining either the winning bidder (should the right to top is not exercised) or KAWASAKI/PHI (should it exercise its right to top as it did), to raise the purchase price. The petitioner did not allege, nor was it shown by competent evidence, that the participation of the losing bidders in the public bidding was done with fraudulent intent. Absent any proof of fraud, the formation by [PHILYARDS] of a consortium is legitimate in a free enterprise system. The appellate court is thus correct in holding the petitioner estopped from questioning the validity of the transfer of the National Government's shares in PHILSECO to respondent.36

Further, we see no inherent illegality on PHILYARDS act in seeking funding from parties who were losing bidders. This is a purely commercial decision over which the State should not interfere absent any legal infirmity. It is emphasized that the case at bar involves the disposition of shares in a corporation which the government sought to privatize. As such, the persons with whom PHILYARDS desired to enter into business with in order to raise funds to purchase the shares are basically its business. This is in contrast to a case involving a contract for the operation of or construction of a government infrastructure where the identity of the buyer/bidder or financier constitutes an important consideration. In such cases, the government would have to take utmost precaution to protect public interest by ensuring that the parties with which it is contracting have the ability to satisfactorily construct or operate the infrastructure. On the landholding issue, J.G. Summit submits that since PHILSECO is a landholding company, KAWASAKI could exercise its right of first refusal only up to 40% of the shares of PHILSECO due to the constitutional prohibition on landholding by corporations with more than 40% foreignowned equity. It further argues that since KAWASAKI already held at least 40% equity in PHILSECO, the right of first refusal was inutile and as such, could not subsequently be converted into the right to top. 37 Petitioner also asserts that, at present, PHILSECO continues to violate the constitutional provision on landholdings as its shares are more than 40% foreignowned.38 PHILYARDS admits that it may have previously held land but had already divested such landholdings.39 It contends, however, that even if PHILSECO owned land, this would not affect the right of first refusal but only the exercise thereof. If the land is retained, the right of first refusal, being a property right, could be assigned to a qualified party. In the alternative, the land could be divested before the exercise of the right of first refusal. In the case at bar, respondents assert that since the right of first refusal was validly converted into a right to top, which was exercised not by KAWASAKI, but by PHILYARDS which is a Filipino corporation (i.e., 60% of its shares are owned by Filipinos), then there is no violation of the Constitution.40 At first, it would seem that questions of fact beyond cognizance by this Court were involved in the issue. However, the records show that PHILYARDS admits it had owned land up until the time of the bidding.41 Hence, the only issue is whether KAWASAKI had a valid right of first refusal over PHILSECO shares under the JVA considering that PHILSECO owned land until the time of the bidding and KAWASAKI already held 40% of PHILSECOs equity. We uphold the validity of the mutual rights of first refusal under the JVA between KAWASAKI and NIDC. First of all, the right of first refusal is a property right of PHILSECO shareholders, KAWASAKI and NIDC, under the terms of their JVA. This right allows them to purchase the shares of their co-shareholder before they are offered to a third party. The agreement of coshareholders to mutually grant this right to each other, by itself, does not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Constitution limiting land ownership to Filipinos and Filipino corporations. As PHILYARDS correctly puts it, if PHILSECO still owns land, the right of first refusal can be validly assigned to a qualified Filipino entity in order to maintain the 60%-40% ratio. This transfer, by itself, does not amount to a violation of the Anti-Dummy Laws, absent proof of any fraudulent intent. The transfer could be made either to a nominee or such other party which the holder of the right of first refusal feels it can comfortably do business with. Alternatively, PHILSECO may divest of its landholdings, in which case KAWASAKI, in exercising its right of first refusal, can exceed 40% of PHILSECOs equity. In fact, it can even

be said that if the foreign shareholdings of a landholding corporation exceeds 40%, it is not the foreign stockholders ownership of the shares which is adversely affected but the capacity of the corporation to own land that is, the corporation becomes disqualified to own land. This finds support under the basic corporate law principle that the corporation and its stockholders are separate juridical entities. In this vein, the right of first refusal over shares pertains to the shareholders whereas the capacity to own land pertains to the corporation. Hence, the fact that PHILSECO owns land cannot deprive stockholders of their right of first refusal. No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the law disqualifies is the corporation from owning land. This is the clear import of the following provisions in the Constitution: Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. xxx xxx xxx Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.42 (emphases supplied) The petitioner further argues that "an option to buy land is void in itself (Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52 [1967]). The right of first refusal granted to KAWASAKI, a Japanese corporation, is similarly void. Hence, the right to top, sourced from the right of first refusal, is also void."43 Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the case of Lui She did not that say "an option to buy land is void in itself," for we ruled as follows: x x x To be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship. As this Court said in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds: [A]liens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.

But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land (jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi and jus abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) rights the sum total of which make up ownership. It is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow, the use, the next day, the disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of which ownership is made up are consolidated in an alien. And yet this is just exactly what the parties in this case did within this pace of one year, with the result that Justina Santos'[s] ownership of her property was reduced to a hollow concept. If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, as announced in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, is indeed in grave peril.44 (emphases supplied; Citations omitted) In Lui She, the option to buy was invalidated because it amounted to a virtual transfer of ownership as the owner could not sell or dispose of his properties. The contract in Lui She prohibited the owner of the land from selling, donating, mortgaging, or encumbering the property during the 50-year period of the option to buy. This is not so in the case at bar where the mutual right of first refusal in favor of NIDC and KAWASAKI does not amount to a virtual transfer of land to a non-Filipino. In fact, the case at bar involves a right of first refusal over shares of stock while the Lui She case involves an option to buy the land itself. As discussed earlier, there is a distinction between the shareholders ownership of shares and the corporations ownership of land arising from the separate juridical personalities of the corporation and its shareholders. We note that in its Motion for Reconsideration, J.G. Summit alleges that PHILSECO continues to violate the Constitution as its foreign equity is above 40% and yet owns long-term leasehold rights which are real rights.45 It cites Article 415 of the Civil Code which includes in the definition of immovable property, "contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property."46 Any existing landholding, however, is denied by PHILYARDS citing its recent financial statements.47 First, these are questions of fact, the veracity of which would require introduction of evidence. The Court needs to validate these factual allegations based on competent and reliable evidence. As such, the Court cannot resolve the questions they pose. Second, J.G. Summit misreads the provisions of the Constitution cited in its own pleadings, to wit: 29.2 Petitioner has consistently pointed out in the past that private respondent is not a 60%-40% corporation, and this violates the Constitution x x x The violation continues to this day because under the law, it continues to own real property xxx xxx xxx 32. To review the constitutional provisions involved, Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution (the JVA was signed in 1977), provided:

"Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." 32.1 This provision is the same as Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. 32.2 Under the Public Land Act, corporations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain are corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizens (Sec. 22, Commonwealth Act 141, as amended). (emphases supplied) As correctly observed by the public respondents, the prohibition in the Constitution applies only to ownership of land.48 It does not extend to immovable or real property as defined under Article 415 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, we would have a strange situation where the ownership of immovable property such as trees, plants and growing fruit attached to the land49 would be limited to Filipinos and Filipino corporations only. III. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY and the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. The Motion to Elevate This Case to the Court En Banc is likewise DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Corona, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984 INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU), petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, respondents. Sisenando R. Villaluz, Jr. for petitioner. Abdulmaid Kiram Muin colloborating counsel for petitioner.

The Solicitor General Caparas, Tabios, Ilagan Alcantara & Gatmaytan Law Office and Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office for respondents.

MAKASIAR, J.:+.wph!1 This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order dated November 10, 1979, of respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, Amado G. Inciong, in NLRC case No. RB-IV-1561-76 entitled "Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (complainant-appellee), vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America" (respondent-appellant), the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment. promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 109 rec.). The antecedent facts culled from the records are as follows: On June 20, 1975, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. IV in Manila. Conciliation having failed, and upon the request of both parties, the case was certified for arbitration on July 7, 1975 (p. 18, NLRC rec. On August 25, 1975, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in the above-entitled case, granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay. Pertinent portions of the decision read: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx The records disclosed that employees of respondent bank were not paid their wages on unworked regular holidays as mandated by the Code, particularly Article 208, to wit: t.hqw Art. 208. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers. (b) The term "holiday" as used in this chapter, shall include: New Year's Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and the thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a general election. xxx xxx xxx

This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the daily rate of pay of the bank employees was computed in the past with the unworked regular holidays as excluded for purposes of determining the deductible amount for absences incurred Thus, if the employer uses the factor 303 days as a divisor in determining the daily rate of monthly paid employee, this gives rise to a presumption that the monthly rate does not include payments for unworked regular holidays. The use of the factor 303 indicates the number of ordinary working days in a year (which normally has 365 calendar days), excluding the 52 Sundays and the 10 regular holidays. The use of 251 as a factor (365 calendar days less 52 Saturdays, 52 Sundays, and 10 regular holidays) gives rise likewise to the same presumption that the unworked Saturdays, Sundays and regular holidays are unpaid. This being the case, it is not amiss to state with certainty that the instant claim for wages on regular unworked holidays is found to be tenable and meritorious. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) xxx xxxx xxx (b) Ordering respondent to pay wages to all its employees for all regular h(olidays since November 1, 1974 (pp. 97-99, rec., underscoring supplied). Respondent bank did not appeal from the said decision. Instead, it complied with the order of Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano by paying their holiday pay up to and including January, 1976. On December 16, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 850 was promulgated amending, among others, the provisions of the Labor Code on the right to holiday pay to read as follows: t.hqw Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wages during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate and (c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes New Year's Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and the thirtieth of December, and the day designated by law for holding a general election. Accordingly, on February 16, 1976, by authority of Article 5 of the same Code, the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay. The controversial section thereof reads: t.hqw Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve" (italics supplied). On April 23, 1976, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor (now Minister) interpreting the above-quoted rule, pertinent portions of which read: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit. Under the rules implementing P.D. 850, this policy has been fully clarified to eliminate controversies on the entitlement of monthly paid employees, The new determining rule is this: If the monthly paid employee is receiving not less than P240, the maximum monthly minimum wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from January to December, he is presumed to be already paid the ten (10) paid legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from his monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur, then he is still entitled to the ten (10) paid legal holidays. ..." (emphasis supplied). Respondent bank, by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code and by Policy Instruction No. 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to an its employees. On August 30, 1976, petitioner filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the arbiter's decision of August 25, 1975, whereby the respondent bank was ordered to pay its employees their daily wage for the unworked regular holidays. On September 10, 1975, respondent bank filed an opposition to the motion for a writ of execution alleging, among others, that: (a) its refusal to pay the corresponding unworked holiday pay in accordance with the award of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, is based on and justified by Policy Instruction No. 9 which interpreted the rules implementing P. D. 850; and (b) that the said award is already repealed by P.D. 850 which took effect on December 16, 1975, and by said Policy Instruction No. 9 of the Department of Labor, considering that its monthly paid employees are not receiving less than P240.00 and their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and that no deductions are made from the monthly salaries of its employees on account of holidays in months where they occur (pp. 64-65, NLRC rec.). On October 18, 1976, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano, instead of issuing a writ of execution, issued an order enjoining the respondent bank to continue paying its employees their regular holiday pay on the following grounds: (a) that the judgment is already final and the findings which is found in the body of the decision as well as the dispositive portion thereof is res judicata or is the law of the case between the parties; and (b) that since the decision had been partially implemented by the respondent bank, appeal from the said decision is no longer available (pp. 100-103, rec.).

On November 17, 1976, respondent bank appealed from the above-cited order of Labor Arbiter Soriano to the National Labor Relations Commission, reiterating therein its contentions averred in its opposition to the motion for writ of execution. Respondent bank further alleged for the first time that the questioned order is not supported by evidence insofar as it finds that respondent bank discontinued payment of holiday pay beginning January, 1976 (p. 84, NLRC rec.). On June 20, 1978, the National Labor Relations Commission promulgated its resolution en banc dismissing respondent bank's appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: t. hqw In view of the foregoing, we hereby resolve to dismiss, as we hereby dismiss, respondent's appeal; to set aside Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano's order of 18 October 1976 and, as prayed for by complainant, to order the issuance of the proper writ of execution (p. 244, NLRC rec.). Copies of the above resolution were served on the petitioner only on February 9, 1979 or almost eight. (8) months after it was promulgated, while copies were served on the respondent bank on February 13, 1979. On February 21, 1979, respondent bank filed with the Office of the Minister of Labor a motion for reconsideration/appeal with urgent prayer to stay execution, alleging therein the following: (a) that there is prima facie evidence of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission, in dismissing the respondent's appeal on pure technicalities without passing upon the merits of the appeal and (b) that the resolution appealed from is contrary to the law and jurisprudence (pp. 260-274, NLRC rec.). On March 19, 1979, petitioner filed its opposition to the respondent bank's appeal and alleged the following grounds: (a) that the office of the Minister of Labor has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal pursuant to the provisions of P. D. 1391; (b) that the labor arbiter's decision being final, executory and unappealable, execution is a matter of right for the petitioner; and (c) that the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 25, 1975 is supported by the law and the evidence in the case (p. 364, NLRC rec.). On July 30, 1979, petitioner filed a second motion for execution pending appeal, praying that a writ of execution be issued by the National Labor Relations Commission pending appeal of the case with the Office of the Minister of Labor. Respondent bank filed its opposition thereto on August 8, 1979. On August 13, 1979, the National Labor Relations Commission issued an order which states: t.hqw The Chief, Research and Information Division of this Commission is hereby directed to designate a Socio-Economic Analyst to compute the holiday pay of the employees of the Insular Bank of Asia and America from April 1976 to the present, in accordance with the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated August 25, 1975" (p. 80, rec.).

On November 10, 1979, the Office of the Minister of Labor, through Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong, issued an order, the dispositive portion of which states: t.hqw ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 436, NLRC rec.). Hence, this petition for certiorari charging public respondent Amado G. Inciong with abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The issue in this case is: whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay can still be set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already become final and had been partially executed, the finality of which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission sitting en banc, on the basis of an Implementing Rule and Policy Instruction promulgated by the Ministry of Labor long after the said decision had become final and executory. WE find for the petitioner. I WE agree with the petitioner's contention that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion (p. 1 1, rec.). Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 850, provides: t.hqw Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. ... The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82 thereof which reads: t.hqw Art. 82. Coverage. The provision of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations. ... (emphasis supplied). From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said benefits by inserting,

under Rule IV, Book Ill of the implementing rules, Section 2, which provides that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. " Public respondent maintains that "(T)he rules implementing P. D. 850 and Policy Instruction No. 9 were issued to clarify the policy in the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. As interpreted, 'unworked' legal holidays are deemed paid insofar as monthly paid employees are concerned if (a) they are receiving not less than the statutory minimum wage, (b) their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and (c) no deduction is made from their monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur. As explained in Policy Instruction No, 9, 'The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily paid employees. In case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit' " (pp. 340-341, rec.). This contention is untenable. It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits (Orlosky vs. Haskell, 155 A. 112.) Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Public respondent vehemently argues that the intent and spirit of the holiday pay law, as expressed by the Secretary of Labor in the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. The Chartered Bank (NLRC Case No. RB-1789-75, March 24, 1976), is to correct the disadvantages inherent in the daily compensation system of employment holiday pay is primarily intended to benefit the daily paid workers whose employment and income are circumscribed by the principle of "no work, no pay." This argument may sound meritorious; but, until the provisions of the Labor Code on holiday pay is amended by another law, monthly paid employees are definitely included in the benefits of regular holiday pay. As earlier stated, the presumption is always in favor of law, negatively put, the Labor Code is always strictly construed against management. While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, as in the instant case, the same must be declared as null and void. It is the role of

the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary, correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government, almost always in situations where some agency of the State has engaged in action that stems ultimately from some legitimate area of governmental power (The Supreme Court in Modern Role, C. B. Swisher 1958, p. 36). Thus. in the case of Philippine Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission (106 SCRA 444, July 31, 1981) where the Secretary of Labor enlarged the scope of exemption from the coverage of a Presidential Decree granting increase in emergency allowance, this Court ruled that: t.hqw ... the Secretary of Labor has exceeded his authority when he included paragraph (k) in Section 1 of the Rules implementing P. D. 1 1 23. xxx xxx xxx Clearly, the inclusion of paragraph k contravenes the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Labor, and the same is therefore void, as ruled by this Court in a long line of cases . . . .. t. hqw The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the administration of the statute, necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment, may be found in the early case of United States vs. Barrios decided in 1908. Then came in a 1914 decision, United States vs. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil. 119) delineation of the scope of such competence. Thus: "Of course the regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid." In 1936, in People vs. Santos, this Court expressed its disapproval of an administrative order that would amount to an excess of the regulatory power vested in an administrative official We reaffirmed such a doctrine in a 1951 decision, where we again made clear that where an administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, 'the mandate of the Act must prevail and must be followed. Justice Barrera, speaking for the Court in Victorias Milling inc. vs. Social Security Commission, citing Parker as well as Davis did tersely sum up the matter thus: "A rule is binding on the Courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom. ... On the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine chat the law means." "It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution assert for itself a more extensive prerogative. Necessarily, it is bound to observe the constitutional mandate. There must be strict compliance with the legislative enactment. Its terms must be followed the statute requires adherence to, not departure from its provisions. No

deviation is allowable. In the terse language of the present Chief Justice, an administrative agency "cannot amend an act of Congress." Respondents can be sustained, therefore, only if it could be shown that the rules and regulations promulgated by them were in accordance with what the Veterans Bill of Rights provides" (Phil. Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, 463, 464, citing Teozon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, PVA 33 SCRA 585; see also Santos vs. Hon. Estenzo, et al, 109 Phil. 419; Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil. 295; Sy Man vs. Jacinto & Fabros, 93 Phil. 1093; Olsen & Co., Inc. vs. Aldanese and Trinidad, 43 Phil. 259). This ruling of the Court was recently reiterated in the case of American Wire & Cable Workers Union (TUPAS) vs. The National Labor Relations Commission and American Wire & Cable Co., Inc., G.R. No. 53337, promulgated on June 29, 1984. In view of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to implement the Labor Code and Policy instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared null and void. Accordingly, public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed by the Labor Code. II It is not disputed that the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, had already become final, and was, in fact, partially executed by the respondent bank. However, public respondent maintains that on the authority of De Luna vs. Kayanan, 61 SCRA 49, November 13, 1974, he can annul the final decision of Labor Arbiter Soriano since the ensuing promulgation of the integrated implementing rules of the Labor Code pursuant to P.D. 850 on February 16, 1976, and the issuance of Policy Instruction No. 9 on April 23, 1976 by the then Secretary of Labor are facts and circumstances that transpired subsequent to the promulgation of the decision of the labor arbiter, which renders the execution of the said decision impossible and unjust on the part of herein respondent bank (pp. 342-343, rec.). This contention is untenable. To start with, unlike the instant case, the case of De Luna relied upon by the public respondent is not a labor case wherein the express mandate of the Constitution on the protection to labor is applied. Thus Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that, "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor and Article 1702 of the Civil Code provides that, " In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Consequently, contrary to public respondent's allegations, it is patently unjust to deprive the members of petitioner union of their vested right acquired by virtue of a final judgment on the basis of a labor statute promulgated following the acquisition of the "right".

On the question of whether or not a law or statute can annul or modify a judicial order issued prior to its promulgation, this Court, through Associate Justice Claro M. Recto, said: t. hqw xxx xxx xxx We are decidedly of the opinion that they did not. Said order, being unappealable, became final on the date of its issuance and the parties who acquired rights thereunder cannot be deprived thereof by a constitutional provision enacted or promulgated subsequent thereto. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes, except penal laws favorable to the accused, have retroactive effect in the sense of annulling or modifying vested rights, or altering contractual obligations" (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324, emphasis supplied). In the case of In re: Cunanan, et al., 19 Phil. 585, March 18, 1954, this Court said: "... when a court renders a decision or promulgates a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision, order, or resolution already promulgated, in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect." Thus, the amendatory rule (Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code) cannot be given retroactive effect as to modify final judgments. Not even a law can validly annul final decisions (In re: Cunanan, et al., Ibid). Furthermore, the facts of the case relied upon by the public respondent are not analogous to that of the case at bar. The case of De Luna speaks of final and executory judgment, while iii the instant case, the final judgment is partially executed. just as the court is ousted of its jurisdiction to annul or modify a judgment the moment it becomes final, the court also loses its jurisdiction to annul or modify a writ of execution upon its service or execution; for, otherwise, we will have a situation wherein a final and executed judgment can still be annulled or modified by the court upon mere motion of a panty This would certainly result in endless litigations thereby rendering inutile the rule of law. Respondent bank counters with the argument that its partial compliance was involuntary because it did so under pain of levy and execution of its assets (p. 138, rec.). WE find no merit in this argument. Respondent bank clearly manifested its voluntariness in complying with the decision of the labor arbiter by not appealing to the National Labor Relations Commission as provided for under the Labor Code under Article 223. A party who waives his right to appeal is deemed to have accepted the judgment, adverse or not, as correct, especially if such party readily acquiesced in the judgment by starting to execute said judgment even before a writ of execution was issued, as in this case. Under these circumstances, to permit a party to appeal from the said partially executed final judgment would make a mockery of the doctrine of finality of judgments long enshrined in this jurisdiction. Section I of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "... execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal ... or if no appeal has been duly perfected." This rule applies to decisions or orders of labor arbiters who are exercising quasijudicial functions since "... the rule of execution of judgments under the rules should govern all kinds of execution of judgment, unless it is otherwise provided in other laws" Sagucio vs. Bulos

5 SCRA 803) and Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "... decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards, orders, or decisions. ..." Thus, under the aforecited rule, the lapse of the appeal period deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment and the judgment becomes final ipso jure (Vega vs. WCC, 89 SCRA 143, citing Cruz vs. WCC, 2 PHILAJUR 436, 440, January 31, 1978; see also Soliven vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 621; Carrero vs. WCC and Regala vs. WCC, decided jointly, 77 SCRA 297; Vitug vs. Republic, 75 SCRA 436; Ramos vs. Republic, 69 SCRA 576). In Galvez vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 3 SCRA 422, 423, October 31, 1961, where the lower court modified a final order, this Court ruled thus: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx The lower court was thus aware of the fact that it was thereby altering or modifying its order of January 8, 1959. Regardless of the excellence of the motive for acting as it did, we are constrained to hold however, that the lower court had no authorities to make said alteration or modification. ... xxx xxx xxx The equitable considerations that led the lower court to take the action complained of cannot offset the dem ands of public policy and public interest which are also responsive to the tenets of equity requiring that an issues passed upon in decisions or final orders that have become executory, be deemed conclusively disposed of and definitely closed for, otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting at naught the main role of courts of justice, which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order, by settling justiciable controversies with finality. xxx xxx xxx In the recent case of Gabaya vs. Mendoza, 113 SCRA 405, 406, March 30, 1982, this Court said: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx In Marasigan vs. Ronquillo (94 Phil. 237), it was categorically stated that the rule is absolute that after a judgment becomes final by the expiration of the period provided by the rules within which it so becomes, no further amendment or correction can be made by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes. And such final judgment is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which must have been offered for that purpose (L-7044, 96 Phil. 526). In the earlier case of Contreras and Ginco vs. Felix and China Banking Corp., Inc. (44 O.G. 4306), it was stated that the rule must be adhered to regardless of any possible injustice in a particular case for (W)e

have to subordinate the equity of a particular situation to the over-mastering need of certainty and immutability of judicial pronouncements xxx xxx xxx III The despotic manner by which public respondent Amado G. Inciong divested the members of the petitioner union of their rights acquired by virtue of a final judgment is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law Public respondent completely ignored the rights of the petitioner union's members in dismissing their complaint since he knew for a fact that the judgment of the labor arbiter had long become final and was even partially executed by the respondent bank. A final judgment vests in the prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process clause of the Constitution (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324). A final judgment is "a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could no. be deprived arbitrarily without injustice" (Rookledge v. Garwood, 65 N.W. 2d 785, 791). lt is by this guiding principle that the due process clause is interpreted. Thus, in the pithy language of then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion "... acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity, and judicial proceedings suffering from the same flaw are subject to the same sanction, any statutory provision to the contrary notwithstanding (Vda. de Cuaycong vs. Vda. de Sengbengco 110 Phil. 118, emphasis supplied), And "(I)t has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divested the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights" (Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 211, June 5, 1973). Tested by and pitted against this broad concept of the constitutional guarantee of due process, the action of public respondent Amado G. Inciong is a clear example of deprivation of property without due process of law and constituted grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order dated November 10, 1979. WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED, THE ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS SET ASIDE, AND THE DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER RICARTE T. SORIANO DATED AUGUST 25, 1975, IS HEREBY REINSTATED. COSTS AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA SO ORDERED.1wph1.t Guerrero, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur. Aquino and Abad Santos, JJ., concur in the result.

Concepcion Jr., J., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-44717 August 28, 1985

THE CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, in his capacity as the Incumbent Secretary of Labor, and THE CHARTERED BANK, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the respondent Secretary, now Minister of Labor which denied the petitioner's claim for holiday pay and its claim for premium and overtime pay differentials. The petitioner claims that the respondent Minister of Labor acted contrary to law and jurisprudence and with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Sec. 2,

Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and in issuing Policy Instruction No. 9, both referring to holidays with pay.

On May 20, 1975, the Chartered Bank Employees Association, in representation of its monthly paid employees/members, instituted a complaint with the Regional Office No. IV, Department of Labor, now Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) against private respondent Chartered Bank, for the payment of ten (10) unworked legal holidays, as well as for premium and overtime differentials for worked legal holidays from November 1, 1974.

The memorandum for the respondents summarizes the admitted and/or undisputed facts as follows:

l. The work force of respondent bank consists of 149 regular employees, all of whom are paid by the month;

2. Under their existing collective bargaining agreement, (Art. VII thereof) said monthly paid employees are paid for overtime work as follows:

Section l. The basic work week for all employees excepting security guards who by virtue of the nature of their work are required to be at their posts for 365 days per year, shall be forty (40) hours based on five (5) eight (8) hours days, Monday to Friday.

Section 2. Time and a quarter hourly rate shall be paid for authorized work performed in excess of eight (8) hours from Monday through Friday and for any hour of work performed on Saturdays subject to Section 5 hereof.

Section 3. Time and a half hourly rate shall be paid for authorized work performed on Sundays, legal and special holidays.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Section 5. The provisions of Section I above notwithstanding the BANK may revert to the six (6) days work week, to include Saturday for a four (4) hour day, in the event the Central Bank should require commercial banks to open for business on Saturday.

3. In computing overtime pay and premium pay for work done during regular holidays, the divisor used in arriving at the daily rate of pay is 251 days although formerly the divisor used was 303 days and this was when the respondent bank was still operating on a 6-day work week basis. However, for purposes of computing deductions corresponding to absences without pay the divisor used is 365 days.

4. All regular monthly paid employees of respondent bank are receiving salaries way beyond the statutory or minimum rates and are among the highest paid employees in the banking industry.

5. The salaries of respondent bank's monthly paid employees suffer no deduction for holidays occurring within the month.

On the bases of the foregoing facts, both the arbitrator and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the petitioners ordering the respondent bank to pay its monthly paid employees, holiday pay for the ten (10) legal holidays effective November 1, 1974 and to pay premium or overtime pay differentials to all employees who rendered work during said legal holidays. On appeal, the Minister of Labor set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petitioner's claim for lack of merit basing its decision on Section 2, Rule IV, Book Ill of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9, which respectively provide:

Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

POLICY INSTRUCTION NO. 9

TO: All Regional Directors

SUBJECT: PAID LEGAL HOLIDAYS

The rules implementing PD 850 have clarified the policy in the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. Before PD 850, the number of working days a year in a firm was considered important in determining entitlement to the benefit. Thus, where an employee was working for at least 313 days, he was considered definitely already paid. If he was working for less than 313, there was no certainty whether the ten (10) paid legal holidays were already paid to him or not.

The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit.

Under the rules implementing PD 850, this policy has been fully clarified to eliminate controversies on the entitlement of monthly paid employees. The new determining rule is this: 'If the monthly paid employee is receiving not less than P240, the maximum monthly minimum wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from January to December, he is presumed to be already paid the ten (10) paid legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from his monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur, then he is still entitled to the ten (10) paid legal holidays.

These new interpretations must be uniformly and consistently upheld.

This issuance shall take effect immediately.

The issues are presented in the form of the following assignments of errors:

First Error

Whether or not the Secretary of Labor erred and acted contrary to law in promulgating Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9.

Second Error

Whether or not the respondent Secretary of Labor abused his discretion and acted contrary to law in applying Sec. 2, Rule IV of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 abovestated to private respondent's monthly-paid employees.

Third Error

Whether or not the respondent Secretary of Labor, in not giving due credence to the respondent bank's practice of paying its employees base pay of 100% and premium pay of 50% for work done during legal holidays, acted contrary to law and abused his discretion in denying the claim of petitioners for unworked holidays and premium and overtime pay differentials for worked holidays.

The petitioner contends that the respondent Minister of Labor gravely abused his discretion in promulgating Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 as guidelines for the implementation of Articles 82 and 94 of the Labor Code and in applying said guidelines to this case. It maintains that while it is true that the respondent Minister has the authority in the performance of his duty to promulgate rules and regulations to implement, construe and clarify the Labor Code, such power is limited by provisions of the statute sought to be implemented, construed or clarified. According to the petitioner, the so-called "guidelines" promulgated by the respondent Minister totally contravened and violated the Code by excluding the employees/members of the petitioner from the benefits of the holiday pay, when the Code itself did not provide for their expanding the Code's clear and concise conclusion and notwithstanding the Code's clear and concise phraseology defining those employees who are covered and those who are excluded from the benefits of holiday pay.

On the other hand, the private respondent contends that the questioned guidelines did not deprive the petitioner's members of the benefits of holiday pay but merely classified those monthly paid employees whose monthly salary already includes holiday pay and those whose do not, and that the guidelines did not deprive the employees of holiday pay. It states that the question to be clarified is whether or not the monthly salaries of the petitioner's members already includes holiday pay. Thus, the guidelines were promulgated to avoid confusion or misconstruction in the application of Articles 82 and 94 of the Labor Code but not to violate them. Respondent explains that the rationale behind the promulgation of the questioned guidelines is to benefit the daily paid workers who, unlike monthly-paid employees, suffer deductions in their salaries for not working on holidays. Hence, the Holiday Pay Law was enacted precisely to countervail the disparity between daily paid workers and monthly-paid employees.

The decision in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong (132 SCRA 663) resolved a similar issue. Significantly, the petitioner in that case was also a union of bank employees. We ruled that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9, are contrary to the provisions of the Labor Code and, therefore, invalid This Court stated:

It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefit. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that 'All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.' Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits (Orlosky v. Hasken, 155 A. 112)

Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations.

We further ruled:

While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, as in the instant case, the same must be declared as null and void. It is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government, almost always in situations where some agency of the State has engaged in action that stems ultimately from some legitimate area of governmental power (The Supreme Court in Modern Role, C.B. Swisher 1958, p. 36).

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to implement the Labor Code and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared null and void. Accordinglyl public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed by the Labor Code.

Since the private respondent premises its action on the invalidated rule and policy instruction, it is clear that the employees belonging to the petitioner association are entitled to the payment of ten (10) legal holidays under Articles 82 and 94 of the Labor Code, aside from their monthly salary. They are not among those excluded by law from the benefits of such holiday pay.

Presidential Decree No. 850 states who are excluded from the holiday provisions of that law. It states:

ART. 82. Coverage. The provision of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations. (Emphasis supplied).

The questioned Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and the Secretary's Policy Instruction No. 9 add another excluded group, namely, "employees who are uniformly paid by the month." While the additional exclusion is only in the form of a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already been paid holiday pay, it constitutes a taking away or a deprivation which must be in the law if it is to be valid. An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or withholds is obviously ultra vires.

It is argued that even without the presumption found in the rules and in the policy instruction, the company practice indicates that the monthly salaries of the employees are so computed as to include the holiday pay provided by law. The petitioner contends otherwise.

One strong argument in favor of the petitioner's stand is the fact that the Chartered Bank, in computing overtime compensation for its employees, employs a "divisor" of 251 days. The 251 working days divisor is the result of subtracting all Saturdays, Sundays and the ten (10) legal holidays from the total number of calendar days in a year. If the employees are already paid for all non-working days, the divisor should be 365 and not 251.

The situation is muddled somewhat by the fact that, in computing the employees' absences from work, the respondent bank uses 365 as divisor. Any slight doubts, however, must be resolved in favor of the workers. This is in keeping with the constitutional mandate of promoting social justice and affording protection to labor (Sections 6 and 9, Article II, Constitution). The Labor Code, as amended, itself provides:

ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

Any remaining doubts which may arise from the conflicting or different divisors used in the computation of overtime pay and employees' absences are resolved by the manner in which work actually rendered on holidays is paid. Thus, whenever monthly paid employees work on a holiday, they are given an additional 100% base pay on top of a premium pay of 50%. If the employees' monthly pay already includes their salaries for holidays, they should be paid only premium pay but not both base pay and premium pay.

The contention of the respondent that 100% base pay and 50% premium pay for work actually rendered on holidays is given in addition to monthly salaries only because the collective bargaining agreement so provides is itself an argument in favor of the petitioner stand. It shows that the Collective Bargaining Agreement already contemplated a divisor of 251 days for holiday pay computations before the questioned presumption in the Integrated Rules and the Policy Instruction was formulated. There is furthermore a similarity between overtime pay, which is computed on the basis of 251 working days a year, and holiday pay, which should be similarly treated notwithstanding the public respondents' issuances. In both cases overtime work and holiday work- the employee works when he is supposed to be resting. In the absence of an express provision of the CBA or the law to the contrary, the computation should be similarly handled.

We are not unmindful of the fact that the respondent's employees are among the highest paid in the industry. It is not the intent of this Court to impose any undue burdens on an employer which is already doing its best for its personnel. we have to resolve the labor dispute in the light of the parties' own collective bargaining agreement and the benefits given by law to all workers. When the law provides benefits for "employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not" and lists specifically the employees not entitled to those benefits, the administrative agency implementing that law cannot exclude certain employees from its coverage simply because they are paid by the month or because they are already highly paid. The remedy lies in a clear redrafting of the collective bargaining agreement with a statement that monthly pay already includes holiday pay or an amendment of the law to that effect but not an administrative rule or a policy instruction.

WHEREFORE, the September 7, 1976 order of the public respondent is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The March 24, 1976 decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which affirmed the October 30, 1975 resolution of the Labor Arbiter but deleted interest payments is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas, Alampay and Patajo, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., in the result.

Aquino, J., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 OLIVIA S. PASCUAL and HERMES S. PASCUAL, petitioners, vs. ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C. PASCUAL, JOSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ERLINDA C. PASCUAL, WENCESLAO C. PASCUAL, JR., INTESTATE ESTATE OF ELEUTERIO T. PASCUAL, AVELINO PASCUAL, ISOCELES PASCUAL, LEIDA PASCUAL-MARTINES, VIRGINIA PASCUAL-NER, NONA PASCUAL-FERNANDO, OCTAVIO PASCUAL, GERANAIA PASCUAL-DUBERT, and THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA of Br. 162, RTC, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondents.

PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse and set aside: (a) the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 dated April 29, 1988 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 14010 entitled "Olivia S. Pascual and Hermes S. Pascual v. Esperanza C. Pascual-Bautista, Manuel C. Pascual, Jose Pascual, Susana C. Pascual-Bautista, Erlinda C. Pascual, Wenceslao C. Pascual, Jr., et al." which dismissed the petition and in effect affirmed the decision of the trial court and (b) the resolution dated July 14, 1988 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual are the acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres Pascual (Rollo, petition, p. 17). Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October 12, 1973 without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted or spurious children and was survived by the following:

(a) Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, surviving spouses; (b) Children of Wenceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Esperanza C. Pascual-Bautista Manuel C. Pascual Jose C. Pascual Susana C. Pascual-Bautista Erlinda C. Pascual Wenceslao C. Pascual, Jr. (c) Children of Pedro-Bautista, brother of the half blood of the deceased, to wit: Avelino Pascual Isoceles Pascual Loida Pascual-Martinez Virginia Pascual-Ner Nona Pascual-Fernando Octavio Pascual Geranaia Pascual-Dubert; (d) Acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual, brother of the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Olivia S. Pascual Hermes S. Pascual (e) Intestate of Eleuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the half blood of the deceased and represented by the following: Dominga M. Pascual Mamerta P. Fugoso Abraham S. Sarmiento, III Regina Sarmiento-Macaibay Eleuterio P. Sarmiento Domiga P. San Diego Nelia P. Marquez Silvestre M. Pascual Eleuterio M. Pascual (Rollo, pp. 46-47) Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, the surviving spouse of the late Don Andres Pascual, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162 (CFI of Rizal, Br. XXIII), a Special Proceeding, Case No. 7554, for administration of the intestate estate of her late husband (Rollo, p. 47).

On December 18, 1973, Adela soldevilla de Pascual filed a Supplemental Petition to the Petition for letters of Administration, where she expressly stated that Olivia Pascual and Hermes Pascual, are among the heirs of Don Andres Pascual (Rollo, pp. 99-101). On February 27, 1974, again Adela Soldevilla de Pascual executed an affidavit, to the effect that of her own knowledge, Eligio Pascual is the younger full blood brother of her late husband Don Andres Pascual, to belie the statement made by the oppositors, that they were are not among the known heirs of the deceased Don Andres Pascual (Rollo, p. 102). On October 16, 1985, all the above-mentioned heirs entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, over the vehement objections of the herein petitioners Olivia S. Pascual and Hermes S. Pascual, although paragraph V of such compromise agreement provides, to wit: This Compromise Agreement shall be without prejudice to the continuation of the above-entitled proceedings until the final determination thereof by the court, or by another compromise agreement, as regards the claims of Olivia Pascual and Hermes Pascual as legal heirs of the deceased, Don Andres Pascual. (Rollo, p. 108) The said Compromise Agreement had been entered into despite the Manifestation/Motion of the petitioners Olivia Pascual and Hermes Pascual, manifesting their hereditary rights in the intestate estate of Don Andres Pascual, their uncle (Rollo, pp. 111-112). On September 30, 1987, petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditary Rights (Rollo, pp. 113-114) and the Memorandum in Support of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights (Rollo, pp. 116-130). On December 18, 1987, the Regional Trial Court, presided over by Judge Manuel S. Padolina issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves as it is hereby resolved to Deny this motion reiterating the hereditary rights of Olivia and Hermes Pascual (Rollo, p. 136). On January 13, 1988, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 515-526). and such motion was denied. Petitioner appealed their case to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. 14010 (Rollo, p. 15.). On Aril 29, 1988, the respondent Court of Appeals rendered its decision the decision the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 38)

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration of said decision and on July 14, 1988, the Court of Appeals issued its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration (Rollo, p. 42). Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. After all the requirements had been filed, the case was given due course. The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of the deceased. Petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely within the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized and of the doctrine laid down in Diaz v. IAC (150 SCRA 645 [1987]) because being acknowledged natural children, their illegitimacy is not due to the subsistence of a prior marriage when such children were under conception (Rollo, p. 418). Otherwise stated they say the term "illegitimate" children as provided in Article 992 must be strictly construed to refer only to spurious children (Rollo, p. 419). On the other hand, private respondents maintain that herein petitioners are within the prohibition of Article 992 of the Civil Code and the doctrine laid down in Diaz v. IAC is applicable to them. The petition is devoid of merit. Pertinent thereto, Article 992 of the civil Code, provides: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in Diaz v. IAC, supra, where this Court ruled that: Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in turn hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment. Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children.

Applying the above doctrine to the case at bar, respondent IAC did not err in holding that petitioners herein cannot represent their father Eligio Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of their father. In their memorandum, petitioners insisted that Article 992 in the light of Articles 902 and 989 of the Civil Code allows them (Olivia and Hermes) to represent Eligio Pascual in the intestate estate of Don Andres Pascual. On motion for reconsideration of the decision in Diaz v. IAC, this Court further elucidated the successional rights of illegitimate children, which squarely answers the questions raised by the petitioner on this point. The Court held: Article 902, 989, and 990 clearly speaks of successional rights of illegitimate children, which rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner, one should not overlook the fact that the persons to be represented are themselves illegitimate. The three named provisions are very clear on this matter. The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. It may be argued, as done by petitioners, that the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child is entitled to represent by virtue of the provisions of Article 982, which provides that "the grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation." Such a conclusion is erroneous. It would allow intestate succession by an illegitimate child to the legitimate parent of his father or mother, a situation which would set at naught the provisions of Article 992. Article 982 is inapplicable to the instant case because Article 992 prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother. It may not be amiss to state Article 982 is the general rule and Article 992 the exception. The rules laid down in Article 982 that "grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation" and in Article 902 that the rights of illegitimate children . . . are transmitted upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the limitation prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. (Amicus Curiae's Opinion by former Justice Minister Ricardo C. Puno, p. 12). Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 182 SCRA 427; pp. 431-432; [1990]). Verily, the interpretation of the law desired by the petitioner may be more humane but it is also an elementary rule in statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what is says. (Baranda v. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 758-759 [1988]). The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words (Aparri v. CA, 127 SCRA 233 [1984]). When the law is clear, it is not susceptible of interpretation. It must be applied regardless of who may be affected, even if the law may be harsh or onerous. (Nepomuceno, et al. v. FC, 110 Phil. 42). And even granting that exceptions

may be conceded, the same as a general rule, should be strictly but reasonably construed; they extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. Thus, where a general rule is established by statute, the court will not curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication (Samson v. C.A., 145 SCRA 654 [1986]). Clearly the term "illegitimate" refers to both natural and spurious. Finally under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are generally placed under one category, which undoubtedly settles the issue as to whether or not acknowledged natural children should be treated differently, in the negative. It may be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law (DURA LEX SED LEX). PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated April 29, 1988 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-48335 April 15, 1988 JUAN AGUILA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, BRANCH I, SPOUSES JUAN HERNANDEZ and MAGDALENA MALALUAN, GAVINA HERNANDEZ and BONIFACIO LIMBO, MAGDALENA HERNANDEZ and BENITO DIMACULANGAN, ELEUTERIO HERNANDEZ and LAURA BRIONES, DEMETRIA HERNANDEZ and CONRADO CASTILLO, and AVELINO, NESTORIO and CARMEN, all surnamed HERNANDEZ, respondents.

CRUZ, J.: Juliana Matienzo had two husbands in succession, namely, Escolastico Alabastro and, after his death, Daniel Aguila. The petitioner is claiming the disputed property as the only surviving child

of the second marriage. The private respondents are resisting this claim as the children of Maria Alabastro, the sole offspring of the first marriage. 1 In an earlier action between them, docketed as Civil Case No. 1552 in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, the private respondents had sued for partition and damages against the herein petitioner and his wife, alleging that some properties held by them pertained to the first marriage as Juliana and her second husband had not acquired anything during their marriage. Judgment was rendered on January 7, 1974, in favor of the plaintiffs after the defendants were precluded from presenting their own evidence owing to what they later called "the gross ineptitude of their counsel," who had failed to appear at two scheduled hearings. 2 A motion for reconsideration and a second motion for reconsideration and/or to present their evidence were both denied by the trial court. On September 5, 1974, the defendants were given an extension of twenty days to file their record on appeal and on September 24, 1974, another extension of fifteen days was granted. On November 21, 1974, the trial court denied the defendants' record on appeal and appeal bond on the ground that the decision had already become final and executory. On motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court then issued a writ of execution on December 2, 1974, amended the following day, pursuant to which the properties held by the defendants were levied upon and sold at public auction to the plaintiffs as the highest bidders. 3 The acts of the trial court were questioned by the defendants in a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. So was their motion for reconsideration. The defendants then came to this Court in a petition for review by certiorari which was also denied. An "amended" petition was considered a motion for reconsideration and was likewise denied. On August 16, 1976, another motion for reconsideration was also denied with finality, with the warning that no further motions would be entertained . 4 Nothing daunted the defendants tried again, this time by filing on June 8, 1977, a complaint for reconveyance of the properties acquired by the defendants in the earlier action for partition. This new complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 1728 in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. In their answer, the defendants alleged res judicata as one of their affirmative defenses, arguing that the complaint was barred by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 1552. After preliminary hearing of this defense, the trial court considered the objection well-taken and dismissed the case. 5 The petitioner then came to this court to challenge the order. The petitioner does not seriously dispute that requisites of res judicata are present, to wit: (1) the presence of a final former judgment; (2) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, Identity of parties, Identity of subject matter and Identity of causes of action. 6 He says in fact that "he does not seek to do away with the rule of res judicata but merely proposes to undo a grave and serious wrong perpetuated in the name of justice." 7 What he does contend in his brief is that, as a mere technical defense, res judicata showed not prevail over his right to substantial justice, and specifically to due process. The petitioner claims he was denied this constitutional protection when the defendants were deprived of the

opportunity to submit their evidence in the said Civil Case No. 1552 and later to appeal the decision of the trial court. As a matter of fact, he was not denied that opportunity, which is precisely and only what due process guarantees. The records show that he did have that opportunity to be heard and to have the decision reviewed but forfeited the right because of his own counsel, whom he criticized as follows: Clearly, it was through the gross ineptitude of petitioner's original counsel that he was precluded from presenting his evidence in Civil Case No. 1552; that he lost his right to appeal; and that the Decision in the Id case became final, executory and executed. xxx xxx xxx There is also no dispute that the Decision in Civil Case No. 1552 has already become final, executory and executed, and this, all because of the gross ineptitude of counsel for the defendants (herein petitioner and his wife) who did not file the record on appeal within the extended period of time granted by the Court and who later on pursued a wrong remedy before the Honorable Court of appeals in CA. G.R. No. SP-04698 and before the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. No. L- 43388 thereby allowing the period for availing of the remedy of Relief judgment judgment to lapse. 6 Counsel are supposed to represent their clients by virtue of a valid authorization from the latter and act on their behalf with binding effect. Persons are allowed to practice law only after they shall have passed the bar petitions, which merely determine if they have the minimum requirements to engage in the exercise of the legal profession. This is no guaranty, of course, that they will discharge their duties with full fidelity to their clients or with full mastery or at least appreciation of the law. The law, to be fair, is not really all that simple; there are parts that are rather complicated and may challenge the skills of many lawyers. By and large, however, the practice of the law should not present much difficulty unless by some unfortunate quirk of fate the lawyer has been allowed to enter the bar despite his lack of preparation, or, while familiar with the intricacies of his , is nevertheless neglectful of his duties and does not pay proper attention to his work. In the instant case, the petitioner should have noticed the succession of errors committed by his counsel and taken appropriate steps for his replacement before it was altogether too late. He did not. On the contrary, he continued to retain his counsel through the series of proceedings that all resulted in the rejection of his cause, obviously through such counsel's "ineptitude" and, let it be added, the clients" forbearance. The petitioner"s reverses should have cautioned him that his lawyer was mishandling his case and moved him to seek the help of other counsel, which he did in the end but rather tardily. Now petitioner wants us to nullify all of the antecedent proceedings and recognize his earlier claims to the disputed property on the justification that his counsel was grossly inepet. Such a reason is hardly plausible as the petitioner's new counsel should know. Otherwise, all a defeated party would have to do to salvage his case is claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel

as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment. There would be no end to litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum. This would render court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any time by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. On the effects of counsel's acts upon his client, this Court has categorically declared: It has been repeatedly enunciated that "a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted and reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned. ... Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, ... failure to introduce certain evidence, to summon witnesses and to argue the case are not paper grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetency of counsel is so great that his client is prejudiced and prevented from properly presence his case." (Vol. 2, Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, pp. 218, 219-220, citing Rivero v. Santos, et al., 98 Phil. 500. 503-504; Isaac v. Mendoza, 89 Phil. 279; Montes v. Court, 48 Phil. 64; People v. Manzanilla, 43 Phil. 167; U.S. v. Dungca, 27 Phil. 274, U.S. v. Umali, 15 Phil. 33; see also People v. Ner 28 SCRA 1151, 1164). In the 1988 case of Palanca v. American Food, etc. (24 SCRA 819, 828), this principle was reiterated. (Tesoro v. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 296, 304). At that, it is not even exactly true, as the petitioner claims, that his evidence was not considered by the trial court in Civil Case No. 1552. The record shows that when the defendants filed their second motion for reconsideration and/or to allow them to present their evidence, which was attached, it was examined by the court "in fairness to the defendants" but found to be "so vague and not appearing to be indubitable as to warrant reopening of the case." 9 This conclusion was reached by the late Judge Jaime R. Agloro after he had made a careful and lengthy analysis of such evidence, dwelling on each of the disputed properties, their antecedent, description, and the basis of the defendants' claims therefor. A mere reading of such discussion, which covered two single spaced typewritten pages, will show that, although the judge could have simply denied the second motion for reconsideration, he nonetheless took the time and exerted painstaking efforts to study the proffered evidence. The meticulous consideration of such evidence commends the trial judge's thoroughness and sense of justice and clearly belies the petitioner's complaint that he had been denied due process. Perhaps it is for this reason that the petitioner does not strongly attack the decision, preferring to train his sights on his own former counsel. As he says in his petition, he "does not seek the nullity of the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 1552 which has already become final due to legal technicality." 10 What he does ask for is a reconveyance of the subject properties which he says were udjustly taken from him as a result of his lawyer's mistakes. Such blunders, he contends, are correctable in an action for reconveyance which the Court should allow in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.

The law on reconveyance is clear, and jurisprudence thereon is well-settled. This remedy is available in cases where, as a result of mistake or fraud, property is registered in the name of a person not its owner. 11 Clerical error in designating the real owner is a valid ground for reconveyance after the decree shall have become final following the lapse of one year therefrom. Reconveyance may also be sought where it is established that a person not entitled to the property succeeded in registering it in his name to the prejudice of the real owner. However, it cannot be employed to negate the effects of a valid decision of a court of justice determining the conflicting claims of ownership of the parties in an appropriate proceeding, as in Civil Case No. 1562. The decision in that case was a valid resolution of the question of ownership over the disputed properties and cannot be reversed now through the remedy of reconveyance. For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is described as justice outside legality, which simply means that it cannot supplant although it may, as often happens, supplement the law. We said in an earlier case 12 and we repeat it now, that all abstract arguments based only on equity should yield to positive rules, which pre-empt and prevail over such persuasions. Emotional appeals for justice, while they may wring the heart of the Court, cannot justify disregard of the mandate of the law as long as it remains in force. The applicable maxim, which goes back to the ancient days of the Roman jurists and is now still reverently observed is "aequetas nunquam contravenit legis. We find it unnecessary to rule on the other arguments raised by the petitioner as they will not affect the decision we reach today. This decision must again be adverse to him although he may this time be represented by able counsel. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered. Narvasa, Gancayco and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur. Teehankee, C.J., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-22291 November 15, 1976 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS SANTAYANA Y ESCUDERO, defendant-appellant. Ernesto C. Hidalgo and Enrique Jocson for appellant. Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Trial Attorney Josefina Domingo de Leon for appellee.

CONCEPCION, JR., J: Accused, Jesus Santayana y Escudero, was found guilty of the crime of illegal possesion of firearms and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years and to pay the costs. The essential facts are not in dispute. On February 19, 1962, accused Jesus Santayana, was appointed as "Special Agent" 1 by then Colonel Jose C. Maristela, Chief of the CIS. On March 9, 1962, a Memorandum Receipt 2 for equipment was issued in the name of the accused regarding one pistol Melior SN-122137 with one (1) mag and stock. Col. Maristela likewise issued an undated certification 3 to the effect that the accused was an accredited member of the CIS and the pistol described in the said Memorandum Receipt was given to him by virtue of his appointment as special agent and that he was authorized to carry and possess the same in the performance of his official duty and for his personal protection. On October 29, 1962, the accused was found in Plaza Miranda in possession of the above-described pistol with four rounds of ammunition, cal. 25, without a license to possess them. An investigation was conducted and thereupon, a corresponding complaint was filed against the accused. The case underwent trial after which the accused was convicted of the crime charged with its corresponding penalty. Hence, the case was appealed to US and the accused assigned three errors allegedly committed by the trial court in disposing of this case. Of these assigned errors, the two main issued posed are whether or not the present subject matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal court pursuant to Republic Act No. 2613; and whether or not the appointment of the appellant as special agent of the CIS which apparently authorizes him to carry and posses firearms exempts him from securing a license or permit corresponding thereto. Resolving the issue of jurisdiction, there is no doubt that under Section 87 of Republic Act No. 286, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613, the justice over cases of illegal possession of firearms. But equally the Court of First Instance of Manila, which took cognizance of this case had jurisdiction over the offense charged because under Section 44 of Republic Act No. 296, Court of First Instance have original jurisdiction "in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six (6) months, or a fine of more than two hundred pesos (P200.00)"; and the offense charged in the information is punishable by imprisonment for a period of not less than one (1) year and one (1) day nor more than five (5) years, or both such imprisonment and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or more than five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). From the foregoing, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts over Criminal Cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than six (6) months or fine of not more than two hundred (P200.00) pesos or both such imprisonment and fine is exclusive and original to said courts. But considering that the offense of illegal possession of firearms with which the appellant was charged is penalized by imprisonment for a period of not less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, or both such imprisonment and

a fine of not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos or more than five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos (Republic Act No. 4), the offense, therefore, does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. The Court of First Instance has concurrent jurisdiction over the same. As to the second issue to be resolved, there is no question that appellant was appointed as CIS secret agent with the authority to carry and possess firearms. 4 Indeed, appellant was issued a firearm in the performance of his official duties and for his personal protection. 5 It also appears that appellant was informed by Col. Maristela that it was not necessary for him to apply for a license or to register the said firearm because it was government property and therefore could not legally be registered or licensed in appellant's name. 6 Capt. Adolfo M. Bringas from whom appellant received the firearm also informed the latter that no permit to carry the pistol was necessary "because you are already appointed as CIS agent." At the time of appellant's apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is enunciated in the case of People vs. Macarandang 7 wherein We held that the appointment of a civilian as "secret agent to assist in the maintenace of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently puts him within the category of a 'peace officer' equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered by Section 879." The case of People vs. Mapa 8 revoked the doctrine in the Macarandang case only on August 30, 1967. Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at the time of appellant's appointment as secret agent, he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the pistol in question. Wherefore, and conformably with the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant Jesus Santayana y Escudero is hereby acquitted. The bond for his provisional release is cancelled. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Barredo (Actg. Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur. Fernando, J., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO MAPA Y MAPULONG, defendant-appellant.

Francisco P. Cabigao for defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General F. R. Rosete and Solicitor O. C. Hernandez for plaintiff-appellee. FERNANDO, J.: The sole question in this appeal from a judgment of conviction by the lower court is whether or not the appointment to and holding of the position of a secret agent to the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. We hold that it does not. The accused in this case was indicted for the above offense in an information dated August 14, 1962 reading as follows: "The undersized accuses MARIO MAPA Y MAPULONG of a violation of Section 878 in connection with Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 56 and as further amended by Republic Act No. 4, committed as follows: That on or about the 13th day of August, 1962, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully and unlawfully have in his possession and under his custody and control one home-made revolver (Paltik), Cal. 22, without serial number, with six (6) rounds of ammunition, without first having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from the corresponding authorities. Contrary to law." When the case was called for hearing on September 3, 1963, the lower court at the outset asked the counsel for the accused: "May counsel stipulate that the accused was found in possession of the gun involved in this case, that he has neither a permit or license to possess the same and that we can submit the same on a question of law whether or not an agent of the governor can hold a firearm without a permit issued by the Philippine Constabulary." After counsel sought from the fiscal an assurance that he would not question the authenticity of his exhibits, the understanding being that only a question of law would be submitted for decision, he explicitly specified such question to be "whether or not a secret agent is not required to get a license for his firearm." Upon the lower court stating that the fiscal should examine the document so that he could pass on their authenticity, the fiscal asked the following question: "Does the accused admit that this pistol cal. 22 revolver with six rounds of ammunition mentioned in the information was found in his possession on August 13, 1962, in the City of Manila without first having secured the necessary license or permit thereof from the corresponding authority?" The accused, now the appellant, answered categorically: "Yes, Your Honor." Upon which, the lower court made a statement: "The accused admits, Yes, and his counsel Atty. Cabigao also affirms that the accused admits." Forthwith, the fiscal announced that he was "willing to submit the same for decision." Counsel for the accused on his part presented four (4) exhibits consisting of his appointment "as secret agent of the Hon. Feliciano Leviste," then Governor of Batangas, dated June 2, 1962;1 another document likewise issued by Gov. Leviste also addressed to the accused directing him to proceed to Manila, Pasay and Quezon City on a confidential mission;2 the oath of office of the accused as such secret agent,3 a certificate dated March 11, 1963, to the effect that the accused "is a secret agent" of Gov. Leviste.4 Counsel for the accused then stated that with the presentation of the

above exhibits he was "willing to submit the case on the question of whether or not a secret agent duly appointed and qualified as such of the provincial governor is exempt from the requirement of having a license of firearm." The exhibits were admitted and the parties were given time to file their respective memoranda.1wph1.t Thereafter on November 27, 1963, the lower court rendered a decision convicting the accused "of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and one day to two years and to pay the costs. The firearm and ammunition confiscated from him are forfeited in favor of the Government." The only question being one of law, the appeal was taken to this Court. The decision must be affirmed. The law is explicit that except as thereafter specifically allowed, "it shall be unlawful for any person to . . . possess any firearm, detached parts of firearms or ammunition therefor, or any instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition."5 The next section provides that "firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines [of the Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of provincial prisoners and jails," are not covered "when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties."6 The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such he is not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them."7 The conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside. Accused however would rely on People v. Macarandang,8 where a secret agent was acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment "of the accused as a secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes, sufficiently put him within the category of a "peace officer" equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered by section 879." Such reliance is misplaced. It is not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a statutory provision. To the extent therefore that this decision conflicts with what was held in People v. Macarandang, it no longer speaks with authority. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii xxiv xxv xxvi xxvii

xxviii xxix xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii xxxviii xxxix xl xli xlii xliii xliv xlv xlvi xlvii xlviii xlix l li lii liii liv

lv lvi lvii lviii lix lx lxi lxii lxiii lxiv lxv lxvi lxvii lxviii lxix lxx lxxi lxxii lxxiii lxxiv lxxv lxxvi lxxvii lxxviii lxxix lxxx lxxxi

lxxxii lxxxiii lxxxiv lxxxv lxxxvi lxxxvii lxxxviii lxxxix xc xci xcii xciii