Alba v Evangelista

January 1, 1954: President appointed Vicente Alajar as Vice-Mayor of

Roxas City; January 6: ssu!ed o"ce; Marc# $1: "r!ed %y
Co!!ission on ppoint!ents
&o'e!%er 1955: (e recei'ed )ord fro! ssistant *xecuti'e +ecretary
*nri,ue -ue!a, statin. t#at t#e President #ad desi.nated Ju/iano /%a
to t#e position, as0in. /a1ar to turn over the ofce to Alba2
/%a /i0e)ise recei'ed )ord of #is appoint!ent fro! *xecuti'e +ecretary
3red Rui4 Castro2
/a1ar instituted ,uo )arranto proceedin.s, statin.:
12 /%a usurped t#e 'ice !ayor o"ce2
52 6#ere )as no 'acancy at t#e ti!e of appoint!ent
$2 6#ere )as no /e.a/ cause or reason for t#e re!o'a/ of /a1ar
7o)er Court: /a1ar cou/d 0eep t#e position2 /%a appea/ed2
8n t#e !eanti!e, /a1ar 9/ed a petition for execution of 1ud.!ent,
.ranted %y t#e court, %ut t#e decision )as not executed %ecause /%a
appea/ed to t#e +C2
+upre!e Court: /%a as0ed for a pre/i!inary in1uction fro! /a1ar ta0in.
t#e position, unti/ t#e 9na/ decision )as !ade2
+o/icitor :enera/: )anted to inter'ene %ecause #e )as not a%/e to
defend t#e constitutionality of RA 603 in t#e /o)er court2 +ection ; of
R 6<$ dec/ares t#e 'ice !ayors#ip of Roxas city to %e terminable at
t#e p/easure of t#e appointin. aut#ority
/%a ar.ued t#at t#e tria/ court erred:
12 Predicated decision on !ista0en assu!ption t#at /%a %e/on.ed
to t#e unc/assi9ed ci'i/ ser'ice
52 &ot dec/arin. )it#out t#e necessity of !a0in. a pronounce!ent
of its 'a/idity, t#at R 6<; )as intended to exc/ude t#e o"ce of
Roxas City fro! persons %e/on.in. to t#e unc/assi9ed ser'ice
$2 &ot dec/arin. t#at n t#e case of Jo'er ' =orra, +C passd upon t#e
'a/idity of section ;2
42 (o/din. t#at t#e o"ce of 'ice-!ayor is neit#er pri!ari/y
con9dentia/ nor po/icy-deter!inin.
52 &ot #o/din. t#at R 6<$ section 9 )as a valid exercise of
Con.ress %y t#e Constitution2
/a1ar contends t#at R 6<$ section ; )as incompatible )it# t#e
constitutiona/ in#i%ition t#at >no o"cer or e!p/oyee in t#e Ci'i/ ser'ice
s#a// %e removed or suspended except for cause as pro'ided %y /a)?
and t#at t#e t)o pro'isions )ere repu.nant and irreconci/a%/e2
Issue !"# section $ o% RA 603 &as constitutional'
@es2 A#i/e section ; of R 6<$ is see!in./y inco!pati%/e )it# t#e
constitution t#at pro#i%its re!o'a/, t#e court !a0es a distinction
%et)een re!o'a/ and expiration of tenure2 6#e 'ice !ayor o"ce )as
created in Con.ress to %e #e/d at t#e p/easure of t#e President2 6#e
constitution on/y refers to 9xed ter!s2 (Interpreting it that way would
make the statute valid as opposed to Alajars interpretation. Assuming
but not conceding a gray area in the law, there was still clearly room for
a valid interpretation, which the courts take because of the presumption
of constitutionality.)
3or anyone to ar.ue a.ainst t#e constitutiona/ity of a statute, it !ust %e
s#o)n t#at t#e statute 'io/ates t#e constitution c/ear/y, pa/pa%/y, p/ain/y,
and in suc# !anner as to /ea'e no #esitation in t#e !ind of t#e court2
6#e court presu!es e'ery statute is 'a/id, %ased on t#e t#eory of
separation of po)ers2
(e/d: Petition a"r!ed2 7o)er court decision is re'ersed, /%a is Vice
Mayor2
(uper )igest *resumption o% +onstitutionality
Vice Mayor of Roxas, /a1ar, )as rep/aced %y /%a under directions of t#e
President2
/a1ar contested sayin. t#at R 6<$ section ; B)#ic# !ade t#e 'ice
!ayors#ip tenure not 9xed %ut at t#e p/easure of t#e appointin. o"cerC
)as not constitutiona/ %ecause t#e constitution didnDt a//o) re!o'a/
)it#out 1ust cause2 "r!ed %y /o)er court2
6#e +upre!e Court )as sti// a%/e to interpret t#e statute in a !anner
t#at )ou/d !a0e in constitutiona/ E t#ey stated t#e constitution on/y
referred to re!o'a/ fro! 9xed ter!s2 +ince t#e 'ice !ayors#ip )as
ne'er a 9xed ter!, it )as !ere/y an expiration of tenure and not
re!o'a/2 R 6<$ section ; did not .o a.ainst t#e constitution2 Fecision
re'ersed2 /%a is 'ice !ayor2