ALUNAN III - v - REYES
RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, in his capacity as Secretary
of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), et al. petitioners, vs.
ROBERT MIRASOL, et al., and the HONORABLE WILFREDO D. REYES, Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Metro Manila, respondents.
G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997, MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
1.
This is a petition for
review on certiorari of the decision of RTC Manila (Branch 36) nullifying an order of the DILG, which
in effect cancelled the general elections for the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
slated on December 4, 1992 in the City of Manila, on the ground that the
elections previously held on May 26, 1990 served the purpose of the first
elections for the SK under the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160)
3.
DILG, however, through
then Secretary Alunan III, issued a letter-resolution "exemption" the
City of Manila from holding elections for the SK on the ground that the
elections previously held on May 26, 1990 were to be considered the first under
the newly-enacted LGC.
4.
The DILG acted on a
letter of Santiago, acting president of the KB City Federation of Manila and a
member of City Council of Manila, which called attention to the fact that in
the City of Manila elections for the Kabataang Barangay (the precursor of
the Sangguniang Kabataan) had previously been held on May 26, 1990
5.
Private respondents filed
a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC of Manila to
set aside the resolution of the DILG. They argued that petitioner Secretary of
Interior and Local Government had no power to amend the resolutions of the
COMELEC calling for general elections for SKs and that the DILG resolution in
question denied them the equal protection of the laws.
6.
Hon. Wilfredo D. Reyes,
rendered a decision, holding that:
a.
(1) the DILG had no
power to "exempt" the City of Manila from holding SK elections on
December 4, 1992 because under Art. IX, C, §2(1) of the Constitution the
power to enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall" is
vested solely in the COMELEC;
b.
(2) the COMELEC had
already in effect determined that there had been no previous elections for KB
by calling for general elections for SK officers in every barangay without
exception; and
c.
(3) the
"exemption" of the City of Manila was violative of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution
7.
Petitioners sought this
review on certiorari. They
insist that the City of Manila, having already conducted elections for the KB
on May 26, 1990, was exempted from holding elections on December 4, 1992. In
support of their contention, they cite §532(d) of the Local Government Code of
1991, which provides that:
All seats reserved for the
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan in the different sangguniang shall be
deemed vacant until such time that the sangguniang kabataan chairmen shall have
been elected and the respective pederasyon presidents have been selected: Provided, That, elections for the
kabataang barangay conducted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 at any time between January 1,
1988 and January 1, 1992 shall be considered as the first elections provided
for in this Code. The
term of office of the kabataang barangay officials elected within the said
period shall be extended correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of
those elected under this Code.
Issues:
1.
Whether or not the
Secretary of Interior and Local Government can "exempt" a local
government unit from holding elections for SK officers on December 4, 1992.
2.
Whether or not the
COMELEC can provide that "the DILG shall have direct control and
supervision over the election of SK with the technical assistance by the Comelec.
Held: YES. YES. RTC decision reversed. Case
against petitioner dismissed.
A. Under §4 of Resolution No. 2499, COMELEC placed
the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG. This did
not contravene Art. IX, C, §2(1) of the Constitution which provides that the
COMELEC shall have the power to "enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall." Elections for SK officers are not subject to the supervision of the
COMELEC; contests involving elections of SK officials do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
The choice of the DILG for the task in question
was appropriate and was in line with the legislative policy evident in several
statutes.
a. P.D. No. 684 (creating Kabataang
Barangays) §6 provides that the "Secretary of Local Government and
Community Development shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
deemed necessary to effectively implement the provisions of this Decree."
b. Presidential Proclamation
No. 2421, tasked the then Ministry of Local Government, the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports, and the Comelec to assist the KB in the conduct
of the elections.
c. President C. Aquino
directed the Secretary of Local Government to issue the necessary rules and
regulations for effecting the representation of the KB, among other sectors, in
the legislative bodies of the local government units.
What was left to the DILG to perform was the
enforcement of the rules.
B.
COMELEC did not name the
barangays which were not included in the SK elections to be held on December 4,
1992. These barangays were precisely to be determined by the DILG fairly
inferable from the authority given to the DILG to supervise the conduct of the
elections.
The authority granted was nothing more than the
ascertainment of a fact, namely, whether between January 1, 1988 and January 1,
1992 elections had been held in a given KB. If elections had been conducted,
then no new elections had to be held on December 4, 1992 since by virtue of §532(d)
the term of office of the KB officials so elected was "extended
correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of those elected under LGC
1991. In doing this, the Secretary of Interior and Local Government was to
act merely as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare
the event upon which its expressed will was to take effect. There was no undue
delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution
of a law. That this is constitutionally permissible is the teaching of our
cases.
C.
In 1990, KB City
Federation elections were conducted in 897 barangays of Manila. It was
precisely to foreclose any question regarding the validity of KB elections held
in the aftermath of the EDSA revolution and upon the effectivity of the new
Local Government Code that the exception clause of §532(d) was inserted.
Section §532(d) may thus be deemed to be a
curative law. Curative laws, which in essence are retrospective in effect,
are enacted to validate acts done which otherwise would be invalid under
existing laws, by considering them as having complied with the existing laws.
Such laws are recognized in this jurisdiction.
D.
It is contended that the exemption of the
barangays of the City of Manila from the requirement to hold elections for SK
officers on December 4, 1992 would deny the youth voters in those barangays of
the equal protection of laws.
If barangays were not entitled to have SK
elections on December 4, 1992 but nevertheless were allowed to have such
elections, that fact did not mean those in Manila should similarly have been
allowed to conduct elections on December 4, 1992 because the fact was that they
already had their own, just two years before on May 26, 1990. Respondents equal
protection argument violates the dictum that one wrong does not make another
wrong right.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
