G.R. No. L-34854: PAMIL v. TELERON, et al.

| November 20, 1978 | Ponente:

Fernando, J.
Recit-ready Digest: A priest was voted as mayor. His political opponent then filed a
suit, arguing that it was illegal for a priest to be elected to public office. Respondent
judge dismissed the case, ruling that the law petitioner cited was already repealed.
Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court. The majority ruled that the 1935
Constitution repealed the law cited by the petitioner. However, only seven voted for
the respondents. Since at least eight (8) votes are required, the respondents lost
the case. At least eight votes are required to render a law ineffective.
Facts:
1. Respondent Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected as mayor of Albuquerque,
Bohol, in 1971
2. Petitioner Fortunato Pamil, an aspirant for the office, filed a quo warranto suit
to disqualify Gonzaga
a. His basis being the Administrative Code provision: In no case shall
there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics,
soldiers in active service, etc.
3. The suit did not prosper, Respondent Judge Victorino Teleron ruled that the
said provision was impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971.
4. Petitioner then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, contending that
there was no such implied repeal, and that the provision is still in full force
and effect.
Issue:
1. Can an ecclesiastic be elected to municipal office? YES, but NO.
Held:
1. Ponentes stand:
a. Respondent judges ruling should be affirmed.
b. The Administrative Code provision cited by the petitioner is no longer
operative because it is either 1) superseded by the 1935 Constitution,
or 2) repealed
c. Why? Because, under the 1935 Constitution, No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
d. If the doctrine of constitutional supremacy is to be maintained, the
Administrative Code provision should not prevail. An ecclesiastic may
therefore run for elective office.
2. HOWEVER, five justices of the Supreme Court (the minority in this decision)
hold the position that such a prohibition against an ecclesiastic running for
elective office is not tainted with any constitutional infirmity.
3. The Supreme Court therefore failed to obtain the majority vote of eight (8).
4. As a result, the petition prospered the respondent judges ruling was
reversed.
5. Respondent Gonzaga was then ordered to vacate his elected position (Booboo.).

6. Furthermore, the dissenting opinions asked the question of how can one
who swore to serve the Churchs interests, above all, enforce state policies
which sometimes conflicts with church tenets?
a. They said that this was a violation of the separation of the Church and
State.
b. They also stated that the Administrative Code still stands because
there is no implied repeal.