ALEX L. DAVID, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AS BARANGAY CHAIRMAN OF BARANGAY 77, ZONE 7, KALOOKAN CITY AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY SA PILIPINAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION…

David versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is the consolidated resolution of two petitions, David versus Commission on Elections and Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter versus Commission on Elections, both decided by the Supreme Court in April 1997. Alex David, suing in his own behalf as barangay chairman of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City and as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, and later the Quezon City chapter of the Liga, asked the Court to stop the barangay election scheduled for the second Monday of May 1997 and to move it to the second Monday of May 1999. They claimed that the term of barangay officials elected in May 1994 is five years under the earlier special laws, not three years under the Local Government Code of 1991. The case matters because it fixes the governing rule on the term of office of barangay officials and settles the relationship between the Local Government Code and the earlier barangay statutes.

Procedural History

Alex David filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to prohibit the holding of the barangay election scheduled in May 1997. The Court required the respondents to comment. The Solicitor General filed a comment siding with the petitioner and praying that the election be held in abeyance, while the Commission on Elections filed a separate comment opposing the petition. The Court gave due course to the petition, required simultaneous memoranda, and asked former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Junior to act as amicus curiae. It noted but did not grant the petitioner's urgent motions for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, and it denied the petition for leave to intervene filed by Punong Barangay Rodson Mayor.

Separately, the Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter filed a petition for certiorari, asking the Court to declare unconstitutional Section 43, paragraph c of Republic Act 7160, the Commission on Elections Resolutions 2880 and 2887 fixing the May 1997 elections, and the 400 million peso appropriation in the 1997 General Appropriations Act. The Court required comments, consolidated the two cases because they raised basically the same issue, and deemed the petitions submitted for resolution. Both cases thus reached the Supreme Court as original actions, not as appeals from a lower court.

Facts

The barangay long antedated the Spanish conquest. Under the Americans the barangays became known as barrios, and during martial law they were renamed barangays. Their officials were first elected in May 1982 to a six-year term. The Omnibus Election Code later fixed a six-year term, with elections on the second Monday of May 1988 and every six years thereafter.

Republic Act 6653 reset that election to the second Monday of November 1988 and cut the term to five years, with the punong barangay chosen by the seven kagawads from among themselves. Republic Act 6679 again postponed the election to March 1989, provided that the term would run from the first day of May 1989 to the thirty-first day of May 1994, and directed that a regular election be held on the second Monday of May 1994 and every five years thereafter, with a five-year term. It also changed the manner of election: the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes would be the punong barangay.

Then came the Local Government Code of 1991, Republic Act 7160. It reduced the term of barangay officials to three years, beginning after the regular election on the second Monday of May 1994. It also altered the composition of the sangguniang barangay and required the punong barangay to be elected at large by the qualified voters. In the barangay elections held on May 9, 1994, the voters actually elected one punong barangay and seven kagawads directly. The Commission on Elections then issued resolutions scheduling the next barangay election for May 12, 1997, and Congress appropriated 400 million pesos for it in the 1997 General Appropriations Act.

Issues

• Whether or not Republic Act 7160 or Republic Act 6679 governs the term of office of barangay officials.
• Whether or not Republic Act 7160, insofar as it shortened that term to three years, is constitutional.
• Whether or not the petitioners are estopped from claiming a term other than that provided under Republic Act 7160.

Applicable Provisions

Section 43, paragraph c of Republic Act 7160, the Local Government Code, provides:

The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three (3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May, 1994.

This is the provision whose three-year term the petitioners resist, and which the Court upholds as the governing law.

Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SEC. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years, and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

This is the constitutional text on which the petitioners built their claim that Congress may not fix a three-year term for barangay officials.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Republic Act 7160 governs. The cardinal rule in the interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the law, and three years is the obvious intent. The Court gave six reasons. First, Republic Act 7160 was enacted later than Republic Act 6679, and in case of an irreconcilable conflict between two laws of different vintages, the later enactment prevails, captured in the maxim legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, meaning the later law abrogates the earlier contrary one. Second, the two laws are repugnant in the manner of electing the punong barangay: the earlier laws had the kagawads choose him, while the Code requires a direct vote by the entire electorate. Third, the voters actually elected one punong barangay and seven kagawads in May 1994, so if the petitioners were right, all punong barangays would have been elected illegally and Alex David could not claim to be a validly elected chairman, much less president of the national league. Fourth, Congress appropriated 400 million pesos for the 1997 elections and provided for a general registration of voters immediately after them, clear contemporaneous statements that the elections would proceed. Fifth, the Court's earlier decision in Paras versus Comelec had already spoken of the barangay election scheduled in May 1997. Sixth, the petitioners' reliance on the doctrine that a special law prevails over a general law, generalia specialibus non derogant, fails, because the provision on the barangay term is itself a special provision, and the Code's repealing clause covers all general and special laws inconsistent with it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the three-year term is constitutional. The Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term for barangay officials; it merely left the determination to the lawmaking body, without any specific limitation or prohibition. Every law enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, and to strike one down there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits, the statute permits. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirmed the intent: when asked what the term of barangay officials would be, Commissioner Davide answered, as may be determined by law, and more precisely, as provided for in the Local Government Code.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners, having been elected under the Local Government Code, are estopped from challenging the three-year term it prescribes.

Doctrine

First, the term of office of barangay officials elected on the second Monday of May 1994 is three years under Section 43, paragraph c of Republic Act 7160, not five years under Republic Act 6679. Second, between two laws of different vintages with an irreconcilable conflict, the later law prevails, because it is the later legislative will. Third, the rule that a special law prevails over a general law does not apply where the later codified law contains a specific provision on the very matter and a repealing clause covering all general and special laws inconsistent with it. Fourth, Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution leaves the term of barangay officials to Congress, and a three-year term is a valid exercise of that discretion. Fifth, one who is elected under a law is estopped from later claiming a term other than that which the law provides.

Disposition

The Court denied the petitions for lack of merit, upheld the three-year term and the constitutionality of the challenged provision, and allowed the barangay election scheduled for May 1997 to proceed.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the term of barangay officials is three years under the Local Government Code, because the later law prevails and the Constitution leaves that term to Congress. Examiners use this case on the hierarchy and repeal of laws, on the special law versus general law rule, and on the constitutional grant of discretion over the barangay term.