RODOLFO FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [G.R. No. 147387. December 10, 2003]

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to declare as unconstitutional Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), insofar as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) which provides:

SEC. 67. Candidates holding elective office. – Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

FACTS:

The petitioners now come to the Court alleging in the main that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title.

According to the petitioners, the inclusion of Section 14 repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in Rep. Act No. 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider.

They point out the dissimilarity in the subject matter of Rep. Act No. 9006, on the one hand, and Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, on the other. Rep. Act No. 9006 primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices, while Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is thus not embraced in the title, nor germane to the subject matter of Rep. Act No. 9006.

The petitioners also assert that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it repeals Section 67 only of the Omnibus Election Code, leaving intact Section 66 thereof which imposes a similar limitation to appointive officials, thus:

SEC. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position. – Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

They contend that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 discriminates against appointive officials. By the repeal of Section 67, an elective official who runs for office other than the one which he is holding is no longer considered ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing his certificate of candidacy. Elective officials continue in public office even as they campaign for reelection or election for another elective position. On the other hand, Section 66 has been retained; thus, the limitation on appointive officials remains - they are still considered ipso facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy.

The petitioners assert that Rep. Act No. 9006 is null and void in its entirety as irregularities attended its enactment into law. The law, not only Section 14 thereof, should be declared null and void. Even Section 16 of the law which provides that “[t]his Act shall take effect upon its approval” is a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as jurisprudence, which require publication of the law before it becomes effective.

Finally, the petitioners maintain that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is a good law; hence, should not have been repealed. The petitioners cited the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr.,[13] that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is based on the constitutional mandate on the “Accountability of Public Officers:”

Sec. 1.    Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Consequently, the respondents Speaker and Secretary General of the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for not considering those members of the House who ran for a seat in the Senate during the May 14, 2001 elections as ipso facto resigned therefrom, upon the filing of their respective certificates of candidacy.

ISSUES:

W/N Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 Is a Rider.

W/N Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 Is Violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

W/N Section 16 of the law which provides that “[t]his Act shall take effect upon its approval” is a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as jurisprudence, which require publication of the law before it becomes effective.

HELD:

To determine whether there has been compliance with the constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title, the Court laid down the rule that –

Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act.

The title of Rep. Act No. 9006 reads: “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices.”

The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of Rep. Act No. 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. To require that the said repeal of Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its content.

The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding, to the other provisions of Rep. Act No. 9006, which deal with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda, does not violate the “one subject-one title” rule. This Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject.

The legislators considered Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code as a form of harassment or discrimination that had to be done away with and repealed. The executive department found cause with Congress when the President of the Philippines signed the measure into law. For sure, some sectors of society and in government may believe that the repeal of Section 67 is bad policy as it would encourage political adventurism. But policy matters are not the concern of the Court. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance. Congress is not precluded from repealing Section 67 by the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra upholding the validity of the provision and by its pronouncement in the same case that the provision has a laudable purpose. Over time, Congress may find it imperative to repeal the law on its belief that the election process is thereby enhanced and the paramount objective of election laws – the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of Congress – is achieved.

Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

Finally, the “Effectivity” clause (Section 16) of Rep. Act No. 9006 which provides that it “shall take effect immediately upon its approval,” is defective. However, the same does not render the entire law invalid. In Tañada v. Tuvera, this Court laid down the rule:

... the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date without its previous publication.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-period shall be shortened or extended….

Following Article 2 of the Civil Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tañada, Rep. Act No. 9006, notwithstanding its express statement, took effect fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.

In conclusion, it bears reiterating that one of the firmly entrenched principles in constitutional law is that the courts do not involve themselves with nor delve into the policy or wisdom of a statute. That is the exclusive concern of the legislative branch of the government. When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power. No such transgression has been shown in this case.

PESIGAN vs. ANGELES, G.R. No. L-64279, April 30, 1984

FACTS:

Petitioners Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in a 10-wheeler truck in April 1982, 26 carabaos and a calf, from Camarines Sur to Batangas.  Despite the health certificate, permit to transport, and certificate of inspection issued to them by the provincial veterinarian, provincial commander and constabulary command, respectively, while petitioners were negotiating the town of Basud, Camarines Norte, the carabaos were confiscated by private respondents, Police Station Commander Lt. Zanarosa, and provincial veterinarian Dr. Miranda.  The confiscation was based on Executive Order 626-A which prohibited the transport of carabaos from one province to another.  Pursuant to EO 626-A, Dr Miranda distributed the carabaos to 25 farmers of Basud.  Petitioners filed for recovery of the carabaos and damages, against private respondent Judge Angeles who heard the case in Daet and later transferred to Caloocan City, and dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not EO 626-A be enforced before its publication in the Official Gazette. 

HELD:

Said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal regulation published more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.

SPOUSES MAKADAYA SADIK and USODAN SADIK vs. JUDGE ABDALLAH CASAR, G.R. No. MTJ-95-1053, January 2, 1997

SADIK vs. CASAR

G.R. No. MTJ-95-1053, January 2, 1997

FACTS:

On February 14, 1985, one Lekiya Paito filed an application for life insurance with the Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (Grepalife) in Cotabato City. The application was approved and Policy No. 0503033 was issued in her name for the amount of P30,000.00 with an accidental death benefit rider. Named as beneficiaries were her daughters, Linang Minalang and Makadaya Sadik. She paid the initial premium of P410.00.

On October 12, 1985, Lekiya Paito died. The beneficiaries and/or through their representatives sought for and obtained the assistance of respondent, who was then a trial attorney of the Bureau of Forest Development, Cotabato City, to pursue the approval of their claim for payment of the insurance benefits with Grepalife.

On November 17, 1989, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant ordering the latter to pay to the former the sum of P30,000.00 as “benefit due them under Insurance Policy No. 503033.” The court denied plaintiffs” claim for double indemnity of P60,000.00 under the accidental death rider. At this time, respondent was already the presiding Judge of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kolambugan-Maigo.

Upon receipt of the decision, respondent as counsel for plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals even as defendant likewise filed an appeal. Respondent represented the plaintiffs in the appeal. After the dismissal of its petition by the Supreme Court, Grepalife filed a Manifestation dated 6 July 1993 with the Regional Trial Court, Br. 13, Cotabato City declaring its willingness to pay the judgment award and depositing with said court RCBC check No. 62837 in the amount of P30,000.00 payable to the plaintiffs.

Respondent collected the check from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Br, 13, Cotabato City and thereafter cashed it. Respondent did not deliver the said money judgment to the plaintiffs. On January 26, 1995, complainants filed their administrative complaint.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent Judge is guilty and must be dismissed from service

HELD:

Respondent’s act of collecting the judgment award of P30,000.00 from the Clerk of Court of RTC, Cotabato City and his refusal to turn over the amount to his client, complainant Makadaya Sadik and her sister, is an act of misappropriation amounting to gross misconduct and/or dishonesty. His defense that he has the right to retain the entire P30,000.00 as attorney’s lien in unacceptable. For he has no right to retain the judgment award allegedly to secure payment of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. He had no authority to practice law while in government service. In continuing to handle the case of herein complainants against Grepalife after he joined the government and without first securing proper authority is no less constitutive of abuse of authority. Furthermore, he violated Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a judge to engage in the private practice of law. 

He likewise violated the Attorney’s Oath in agreeing to file Civil Case No. 2747 for the purpose of claiming the insurance proceeds from Grepalife despite his having been informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya Paito was fraudulently applied for. Agreeing to handle the claim said to have arisen from a fraudulent act against the insurer certainly speaks of a moral flaw in his character. xxx But scam or not we are convinced that the complainant Makadaya Sadik is not an impostor. She denied that she is the step-daughter of Lekiya Paito. She insisted she is the youngest daughter and she named all her brothers and sisters. And it was respondent who presented her in Civil Case No. 2747 as Makadaya Sadik daughter of Lekiya Sadik and one of the beneficiaries of the latter’s insurance policy.

Indeed, to be effective in his role, a judge must be a man of exceptional integrity and honesty. The special urgency for requiring these qualities in a judge is not hard to understand for the judge acts directly upon the property, liberty, even life, of his countrymen. Hence, being in a position of such grave responsibility in the administration of justice, a judge must conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of such exalted office.

Respondent judge, however, not only failed in this respect but proved himself repeatedly unworthy of his post.

This Court notes that respondent had been previously fined P5,000.00 and sternly warned for knowingly issuing an order without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, he has four other administrative cases docketed against him involving various charges such as gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions and falsification of public documents.

Respondent judge’s seeming propensity to transgress the very law he is sworn to uphold makes him unfit to discharge the functions of a judge. Judicial office demands the best possible men and this Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts towards effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public.