DESEDERIO O. MONREAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FELIPE M. ALDAY, RESPONDENTS.

Monreal versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a consolidated special civil action in certiorari brought by two barangay officials, Desederio Monreal and Nestor Racimo Foronda, against the Commission on Elections and their respective private respondents, Felipe Alday and Leopoldo Cruz Manalili. Both petitioners had been elected to a fourth consecutive term as barangay officials and were disqualified by the Commission on Elections under the three-term limit rule of Republic Act 9164. They ask the Supreme Court to annul those disqualifications, arguing that a pending court case challenging the constitutionality of the three-term limit provision operates as a prejudicial question that should have suspended the disqualification proceedings. The case matters because it settles two examinable points: that a law is presumed constitutional until finally struck down, so a pending constitutional challenge is not a prejudicial question, and that the rule rejecting the second placer does not apply where the disqualification comes only after the election.

Procedural History

In the case of Monreal, respondent Alday sought his disqualification before the Commission on Elections under the three-term limit rule. Monreal moved to suspend the hearing on the ground that the constitutionality of the cited law was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City in a separate case. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City declared Monreal the duly elected Punong Barangay in the election protest he filed against Alday. The Commission on Elections nonetheless disqualified Monreal and cancelled his certificate of candidacy. He moved for reconsideration, invoking the Regional Trial Court decision annulling the challenged provision as unconstitutional, but the Commission on Elections En Banc denied the motion. In the parallel case of Foronda, respondent Manalili sought cancellation of Foronda's certificate of candidacy on the same three-term limit ground. Foronda likewise sought suspension of the proceedings, and he too won the election and assumed office. The Commission on Elections disqualified him and annulled his proclamation, and the En Banc denied his motion for reconsideration. Both petitioners then filed separate petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases upon their motion.

Facts

Monreal filed his certificate of candidacy for Punong Barangay of Barangay 178, District I, Caloocan City, in the October 29, 2007 barangay elections. Alday sought his disqualification under the three-term limit rule for barangay officials embodied in Section 2 of Republic Act 9164. Monreal asked that the hearing be suspended because the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City was then hearing a case questioning whether that law is unconstitutional. He was later declared the duly elected Punong Barangay in his election protest against Alday, but the Commission on Elections disqualified him from seeking a fourth term and cancelled his certificate of candidacy.

Foronda's case followed the same pattern. Manalili sought cancellation of Foronda's certificate of candidacy for Chairman of Barangay 102, District II, Caloocan City, also for violation of the three-term limit rule. Foronda likewise sought suspension of the proceedings in view of the pending constitutional challenge. He won the election and assumed office, but the Commission on Elections disqualified him and annulled his proclamation as Barangay Chairman.

In both cases the petitioners invoked the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, which had annulled as unconstitutional the second paragraph of Section 2 of Republic Act 9164. That decision, however, had not become final, having been appealed by Alday and made the subject of a motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections.

Issues

• Whether or not the pendency in court of the issue of unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of Section 2 of Republic Act 9164 constitutes a prejudicial question that should suspend the disqualification cases based on that law.
• Whether or not respondent Manalili may assume the position of barangay chairman in place of Foronda under the rule on rejection of the second placer.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act 9164 provides:

Section 2. Term of Office. The term of office of all barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials after the effectivity of this Act shall be three (3) years. No barangay elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position: Provided, however, That the term of office shall be reckoned from the 1994 barangay elections. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was elected.

This is the very provision under which the Commission on Elections disqualified both petitioners, and its validity is the heart of the controversy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no prejudicial question existed. A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in that case. But the Court stressed the settled doctrine that laws are presumptively constitutional until they are found otherwise in an appropriate case. To suspend the disqualification actions while the issue of unconstitutionality was still pending would contravene that doctrine and would amount to a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the provision. The Regional Trial Court decision striking down the provision had not attained finality, and no order had made it executory pending appeal. Consequently, the provision remains in full force.

On the second issue, the Court held that the doctrine rejecting the second placer applies, because the Commission on Elections ordained Foronda's disqualification only after the elections had taken place. On election day, Foronda was still legally a candidate, and it is incorrect to say that the votes intended for him should be considered null and void simply because he was subsequently disqualified. Manalili therefore could not assume the position.

Doctrine

First, a law is presumed constitutional until it is finally struck down in an appropriate case. A pending challenge to a statute's constitutionality is not a prejudicial question that will suspend proceedings applying that statute, for to suspend them would be to enjoin the law's implementation before any final judgment against it. Second, the rule rejecting the second placer does not apply where the winning candidate's disqualification comes only after the election, since the candidate was legally a candidate on election day and the votes cast for that candidate are not null and void. Third, the three-term limit for barangay officials under Section 2 of Republic Act 9164 is intended to broaden the choices of the electorate and to infuse new blood into the political arena by disqualifying officials from running for the same office after nine years.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the petitions of Monreal and Foronda for lack of merit and affirmed the resolutions of the Commission on Elections disqualifying them.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a law is presumed constitutional until finally annulled, so a pending constitutional challenge is not a prejudicial question. Examiners use this case to test the prejudicial question rule against the presumption of constitutionality, and to test the second placer doctrine where disqualification comes after the election.