8/14/2019 De Leon v. Esguerra.docx

1/1

DE LEON VS. ESGUERRAJustice Melencio-Herrera, 31 August 1987

FACTS:In the Barangay elections held on 17 May 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon (petitioner) was elected Barangay Captain and the other

petitioners Salamat, Sta. Ana, Tolentino, de la Rosa and Resurreccion, as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal underBP 222, otherwise known as the Barangay Election Act of 1982.

On 9 February 1987, De Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986but signed by OIC Governor BenjaminEsguerra on 8 February 1987 designating Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. The designationmade by the OIC Governor was "by authority of the Minister of Local Government. " The OIC Governor also signed a Memorandumdesignating Tigas, Lacanienta, Medina, Paz and Tolentino as members of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.

De Leon and 5 other then filed an original action for Prohibitionseeking to enjoin respondents from replacing them from theirrespective positions.

Petitioners Arguments:

Prayer: That the subject Memoranda be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions ofBarangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen, respectively.

Pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shallcommence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified," or up to June 7,1988.

With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate theirsuccessors.

Respondents Arguments:

Rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution, promulgated on March 25, 1986, which provided:SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office untilotherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of theirsuccessors, if such appointment is m ade with in a p eriod of on e year from February 25,1986.

The terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of theprovision and not because their term of six years had not yet expired

The provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have beenrepealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted provision of the Provisional Constitution.

ISSUE AND HOLDING: Whether or not the memorandum is null and void. YES

RATIO:THE MEMORANDUM WAS MADE WITHIN THE ONE YEAR PERIOD

Considering the candid Affidavit of OIC Governor, the SC held that 8 February 1977, should be considered as the effective dateof replacement and not 1 December 1986 to which it was ante dated, in keeping with the dictates of justice

BUT, PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONWhile 8 February 1987 is ostensibly still within the one-year deadline, the aforequoted provision in the Provisional Constitution

must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading.SECTION 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a

plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on 2 February 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution mustbe deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, the OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereofto designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.

PETITIONERS HAS ACQUIRED SECURITY OF TENUREPetitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure specially considering that the Barangay Election Act of 1982

declares it "a policy of the State to guarantee and promote the autonomy of the barangays to ensure their fullest development as self-reliantcommunities. Similarly, the 1987 Constitution ensures the autonomy of local governments and of political subdivisions of which thebarangays form a part, andlimits the President's power to "general supervision" over local governments . Relevantly, Section 8,Article X of the same 1987 Constitution further provides in part:

Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall bethree years ...Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law, therefore, the term of office of six (6) years provided

for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern .The Court finds nothing inconsistent between the term of six (6) years for elective Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution,

and the same should, therefore, be considered as still operative, pursuant to Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, reading:

Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations letters of instructions, and other executive issuancesnot inconsistent, with this Constitution shall remain operative unt il amended, repealed or revoked.

DISSENT, J. SARMIENTOThe 1987 constitution took effect on 11 February 1987, the date the same was proclaimed ratified pursuant to Proclamation No.

58 of the President of the Philippines, and not 2 February 1987, plebiscite day.It is my reading that the Constitution takes effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained, and not at the time

the people cast their votes to approve or reject it. For it cannot be logically said that Constitution was ratified during such a plebiscite, whenthe will of the people as of that time, had not, and could not have been, vet determined.

(Note: Justice Sarmiento enumerated in this dissent several instances where the proclamation of their ratification were held to be the datewhen a Constitution or amendments thereto takes effect. See original for specific example.)