JOHNNY D. SUPANGAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. LUIS T. SANTOS, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND MARISSA DOMANTAY, RESPONDENTS.

The validity and legality of the designations/appointments made
by the Secretary of the Department of Local Government (DLG) of members/sectoral representatives to the local legislative bodies is
the main issue presented in these cases which were ordered consolidated by the
Court.  To fully understand the facts
from which this controversy arose, hereunder is a separate statement of facts
for each of these cases.

G.R. NO.
84663

Petitioner Johnny D. Supangan, Jr., is
a member of the Kabataang Barangay
(KB) of Mabini, Pangasinan.  In 1985, he was elected KB Chairman of the
said municipality.  In that same year he
was elected KB Provincial Federation President of the province
of Pangasinan.

On November 25, 1985,
petitioner was appointed by then President Marcos as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province
of Pangasinan
representing the youth sector.  He
accordingly assumed office, discharged his functions and participated in the
deliberations of the said body.

However on August 8, 1988
at the session hall of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, respondent Marissa Domantay
presented to the Presiding Officer a letter dated August 3, 1988 written by respondent Secretary Luis T.
Santos advising the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
that respondent “Marissa Domantay has been named
as member thereof to replace Johnny D. Supangan,
Jr.” (Annex ‘D’, p. 15, Rollo).  She took her oath of office on August 25, 1988 and began attending
the sessions of the said body.

Claiming that Sec. Santos has no legal authority to designate
private respondent Marissa Domantay as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
representing the youth sector because (a) respondent Marissa Domantay has never been elected as KB Provincial Federation
President of Pangasinan, a basic qualification for
appointment as member representing the youth sector, and (b) respondent
Secretary has no legal authority in issuing his letter dated August 3, 1988
because the term of office of petitioner Johnny D. Supangan,
Jr. has not yet expired nor his successor, if any, been elected/appointed and
qualified, petitioner instituted the present quo warranto
and injunction proceedings.

G.R. NO.
85012

On July 1, 1988,
private respondent Domingo R. de Guzman was designated member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality
of Taguig,
Metro Manila, by Secretary Luis T. Santos. 
He was sworn into office on July
1, 1988.  That same day, at 7:37 o’clock in the evening, de Guzman
attended the Third Regular Session of the Sangguniang
Bayan and tried to assume his position as a member of
that legislative body.  He was prevented
from so doing by some members therof.

During the Fifth Regular Session of the Sangguniang
Bayan on July
18, 1988, the Presiding Officer – Vice Mayor (then Acting Mayor) Pacifico S. Santos announced the acceptance of de Guzman’s
papers as the ABC representative, Councilors Rufino Mamonong, Castillo and Agapito
Cruz, Jr. objected thereto.

On September 8, 1988, Acting Mayor Santos and De Guzman filed a
complaint against Castillo, Cruz and Mamonong, with
the Department of Local Government, for having unlawfully conspired and
confederated with each other to prevent de Guzman from attending and
participating in the sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan to deprive de Guzman of his rights and privileges
that attach to his office and to delete his name from the records of that body
despite the Sangguniang’s verification of the
authenticity of de Guzman’s appointment. 
The case was docketed as Administrative Case No. M-1035-88.

On September 26, 1988,
Castillo, Mamonong and Cruz filed the present
petition for Prohibition and Injunction, to annul the designation of respondent
de Guzman and pending the outcome thereof, to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction against respondent Teodoro Agati from proceeding with the investigation of
Administrative Case No. M-1035-88.

Petitioners claim that the appointment of De Guzman is illegal
for the reasons that:

(a)  There is no law prescribing the appointment
of sectoral representatives;

(b)  Only the President of the Philippines
can appoint sectoral representatives and such act
cannot be delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Local Government;

(c)  Memorandum Order No. 188, signed by the
President of the Philippines
on August 16, 1988
delegating such power to the Secretary of the Department of Local Government
took effect only after the questioned appointment was made;

(d)  In any case, the act delegated therein is the
power to fill permanent vacancies in the Sangguniang Bayan but at the time of de Guzman’s designation, no such
vacancy existed because all ten (10) seats therein, set by Republic Act No.
6636 (which rescheduled local election from November 9, 1987 to January 18,
1988) were all filled up by its ten (10) incumbent members after the January
18, 1988 elections.

G.R. NO.
86393

Public respondent Hon. Luis T. Santos issued two (2) Memoranda
dated November 17, 1988
and December 9, 1988,
designated private respondents Romeo P. Bularan and
Rafael Cortez as members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, representing the
Agricultural and Industrial Labor sectors.

Assailing such designation, petitioners came to this Court for
judicial review on the sole issue of whether or not the Secretary of the
Department of Local Government has the power and authority to appoint or
designate sectoral representatives to the local
legislative bodies.

Petitioners argue that the designation made by respondent
Secretary is unlawful and unconstitutional in the light of Article X Section 9
of the 1987 Constitution.

G.R. NO.
87601

On September 20, 1984, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) of Ozamis
City adopted a Resolution requesting the President to fill up the two (2) slots
alloted to represent the Agricultural and Industrial
Labor sectors in said legislative body, pursuant to par. 5, Section 173 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code. 
The said Resolution was recalled by the Resolution of February 28, 1985, but was
subsequently revived by the Resolution dated January 2, 1986.  (Annexes “A” to “C” of Petition, pp. 8-10, Rollo).

Pursuant thereto, the Mayor of Ozamis
City recommended on January 23, 1989 the appointment of petitioners Pacifico Go and Arturo del Pozo,
as members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Ozamis City representing the Industrial Labor
Sector and Agricultural Sector respectively. 
That same day petitioners took their oath of office before the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Ramon V. Mitra,
Jr.

Forthwith, the petitioners by a letter dated February 10, 1989 informed the Mayor of Ozamis City, thru the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of said city of their designations,
enclosing therewith copies of their appointments and oaths of office.

The Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Ozamis City adopted on March 2, 1989 Resolution
No. 70 declining to recognize the designations of petitioners on the ground
that such designations have not complied with the conditions precedent
prescribed by the Local Government Code (BP Blg. 337)
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. 
(Rule XVI, Sec. 4, par. C)

 And, when the City Mayor
of Ozamis City vetoed the aforesaid Resolution, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
unanimously approved on March 13, 1989
Resolution No. 92 to override the Mayor’s veto.

Meantime, the petitioners sought the intervention of the
Secretary of the Department of Local Government who in his 1st Indorsement dated March 10, 1989 referred to the Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
petitioners’ letter of even date and directing that unless there are legal
reasons to the contrary, to allow them to participate in the deliberations of
that body as duly appointed members thereof.

But the Presiding Officers of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, in his 2nd Indorsement
dated March 27, 1989
informed the Secretary of the Department of Local Government that while
Resolution No. 70 remains in effect, he is powerless to recognize petitioners’
designations.

The Secretary in his letter of April 12, 1989 reiterated compliance with his instruction
contained in his 1st Indorsement but the Presiding
Officer stood firm on his position.

Hence, the filing of the instant petition for Mandamus to
compel respondents Presiding Officer and Members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Ozamis City
to recognize petitioners’ appointments.

G.R. NO.
87602

On January 31, 1989,
the Secretary of the Department of Local Government issued a Memorandum
designating Antonio B. Gomez member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod (representing the Agricultural Sector) of Angeles
City.  On the same day, Gomez took his oath of office.

On February 14, 1989,
the City Council of Angeles City approved, by a majority vote, Resolution No.
33, S-89 affirming the sufficiency of members of the agricultural sector in the
city that warrants the appointment of a representative.

The City Council having already determined the necessity of a
representative, Mayor Antonio Abad Santos in his
letter dated February 15, 1989
to the Presiding Officer and Members of the City Council, introduced for
recognition Mr. Antonio B. Gomez.

Petitioners objected to the designation on the ground that Gomez
was a defeated candidate for councilor in the last election in Angeles City and
is publicly known as engaged in the trade of repairing air-conditioning units
and refrigerators but never has he been engaged in farming or in livestock
raising or in agricultural work or trade involving agriculture and the like,
nor has he been known or identified to work for the interest or plight of
agricultural workers, therefore, he is not competent and qualified to represent
the agricultural sector.

To forestall the assumption of office of said Antonio Gomez,
herein petitioners filed with the Regional
Trial Court of
Angeles City,
a complaint for “Injunction with prayer for a restraining order.”

Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on two (2) grounds,
namely:  that the complaint states no
cause of action and that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Acting on the said motion, the trial court dismissed the case
“solely on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
(p. 53 Rollo)

Hence, the instant petition for review with
prayer for a restraining order.

On April 11, 1989, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
“effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this
Court, enjoining the respondent Vice Mayor Hon. Edgardo
D. Pamintuan and the respondent member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles
City from recognizing and admitting Mr. Antonio B. Gomez as member of said Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles
City.” (p. 56, Rollo)

G.R. NO.
87792

Petitioners are appointees of Hon. Sec. Luis T. Santos of the
Department of Local Government as members of the City Council of the City of
Manila representing the following sectors: 
Juan Baluyot for Industrial Labor, Tagumpay Eusebio for Association
of Barangay Councils (ABC), Daniel O. Castillo as Kabataang Barangay Federation
representative and Jonathan Mangaya representing the
Agricultural Labor Sector.

Petitioners Baluyot, Castillo and Mangaya took their oaths of office on February 9, 1989 while Eusebio
took his on November 29, 1988.  Also on February 9, 1989, the Department of
Local Government Secretary informed Mayor Gemiliano
Lopez, Jr. and Vice-Mayor Danilo Lacuna of the
appointments of petitioners except that of Tagumpay Eusebio who was not mentioned in the letter.

Notwithstanding the advice, the Council did not readily accept
and recognize their appointments.

On March 21, 1989,
the Council debated and voted on whether to recognize and accept the
appointments of petitioners.  Out of thirty
(30) members present, eighteen (18) voted against while twelve (12) were in
favor.  In view of this result, the
Council refused to recognize and accept petitioners’ appointments and barred
their entry into the session hall.

Hence, the present petition for Prohibition and Mandamus
under Sections 2 and 3 respectively of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court.  Petitioners seek the enjoinment
and performance of the following acts, to wit:

“(a)  To enjoin respondents from debating and
deliberating on the legality and validity of the appointment of petitioners as sectoral representatives to the City Council of Manila;

“(b)  To compel
respondents to recognize petitioners as the duly appointed sectoral
representatives to the City Council of Manila and to allow them to participate
in the deliberations of the council in such capacity.”

Petitioners maintain that their appointments are legal and valid
since they conform to Section 9, Art. X of the Constitution which provides for sectoral representation in legislative bodies of local
governments.  Further, petitioners assert
that Section 7, Act, XVIII of the Constitution empowers the President of the Philippines
to “fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors
the seats reserved for sectoral representation in
par. (2) Section 5 of Art. VI . . .” And since the Secretary of the
Department of Local Government is duly authorized to issue appointments under
Executive Order No. 342 dated November 18, 1988, then, perforce petitioners’
appointments which were issued under such lawful authority are legal, valid and
binding.  Petitioners, therefore,
conclude that it is ministerial on the part of respondents to recognize and
accept their appointments.

G.R. NO.
87935

On March 15, 1989,
the Sangguniang Bayan of Urdaneta, Pangasinan presided
over by respondent Mayor Amadeo R. Perez, Jr. passed
a resolution over the vigorous objection of petitioners appropriating the
amount of P94,464.00 as per diems of respondents Soriano and Costales for sessions
to be actually attended by them in the said body.

On March 29, 1989,
said Soriano and Costales
were extended appointments as members of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Urdaneta, Pangasinan representing the industrial and agricultural
sectors respectively.  On the same date, they
took their oaths of office.

Questioning the validity and legality of their appointments,
petitioners filed a petition for “Injunction and/or Declaratory
Relief” before the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 47,
Urdaneta, Pangasinan.

On April 25, 1989,
the lower court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.  Hence, this petition for
“Certiorari and Prohibition with writ of preliminary
injunction/restraining order.”

Petitioners contend that the appointment of Soriano
and Costales is unconstitutional for being violative of Sec. 9, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution and
that respondents are not qualified for the positions to which they were
appointed.

G.R. NO.
89072

On July 1, 1989,
respondents Heracleo Dumadag,
Jr. and Felix Tiukinhoy were designated by Sec.
Santos as representatives of the industrial and agricultural sectors,
respectively, of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of the City of Surigao.  They took their oaths of office on July 10, 1989 and July 12, 1989.  During the Sangguniang
Panlungsod’s session, they presented their
credentials as such designated representatives but were refused recognition by
the council.  Because respondents insist
on the validity of their appointments, petitioners who are the incumbent
Vice-Mayor and City Councilors of the City of Surigao had to file the present
petition for “Prohibition with Injunction and Restraining Order.”

Petitioners contend that the designation of respondents is
illegal because –

(a) Before the President could extend appointment/designation to sectoral representatives, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod must first pass a resolution certifying to
the effect that the sectors concerned are of sufficient number as to warrant
representation.

In the instant case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Surigao
City had not yet submitted a
resolution containing the names of the recommendees.  Absent such resolution, the Hon. Luis Santos
cannot appoint much less designate a sectoral
representative.

(b) Respondents are not qualified for the positions to which they
were appointed.

Respondent Dumadag is not a resident of
Surigao City
but of Marga, Tubod, Surigao del Norte.  In fact, he was a candidate for Mayor in Tubod, Surigao del
Norte in the last local election.

Respondent Tiukinhoy on the other hand,
is not a farmer.  He devoted all his life
to government service and is now a retiree having
retired as Land Transportation Registrar of the Land Transportation Office, Surigao City.

G.R. NO.
90205

In a petition for Injunction filed before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan
the petitioners seek to enjoin the respondents Mayor Ramon R. Guico, Kagawads Isaiah C. Asunsion, Jr., Rolando S. Calderon, Jaime A. Terrado, Paul C. Ramos, Estanislao
T. Hortaleza and Marilyn O. Valenzuela, from recognizing
respondents Tambo and Sison
as members of the Municipal Council and to prohibit the Municipal Treasurer,
respondent Valenzuela from paying or releasing per diems for the said two
respondents.

It appears that the Municipal Council of Binalonan, passed a
resolution recommending the appointment of respondents Arcadio
Tambo and Pablo Sison as sectoral representatives. 
Pursuant to said recommendation, Sec. Luis T. Santos of the Department
of Local Government issued a Memorandum on August 8, 1989 appointing the aforenamed
respondents (who thereafter took their oath of office) as sectoral
representatives of the Sangguniang Bayan of Binalonan to represent
the agricultural and industrial labor sectors, respectively.  At its session on August 6, 1989, respondents Tambo
and Sison presented their appointments to the
Municipal Council of Binalonan.  Petitioners impugned the subject appointments
for not having been signed by the President of the Philippines.

The lower court dismissed the petition.  Hence, the present
recourse.

ISSUES RAISED

The petitioners, in the aforementioned cases, although pursuing
different remedies, center their attack on the authority of the Secretary of
Local Government to designate/appoint members/sectoral
representatives to the local legislative bodies.

Thus, petitioners argue that:

(1) The designations/appointments made by respondent Secretary is
unlawful and unconstitutional in the light of Article X, Section 9 of the 1987
Constitution which provides –

“Legislative bodies of local government shall have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law.”

since there is
as yet no enabling law to implement the constitutional provision.

(2) The power to appoint belongs to the President and cannot be
delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Local Government.

(3) Assuming that the Secretary of the Department of Local
Government is possessed with the power and authority to designate/appoint such
member/sectoral representatives, the
designations/appointments made by respondent Secretary are null and void ab initio as they
were not made in the manner required by the same law.

(4) That the appointees are not qualified.

DISCUSSION

Section 9 Article X of the 1973 Constitution mandates that
legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral
representation as may be prescribed by law.

Under the Local Government Code (BP 337), the power to appoint sectoral representatives is conferred upon the President of
the Philippines.

But the Secretary of Local Government may, by authority of the President
inform the sectoral representatives of their
appointments.  Otherwise stated, it is
actually the President who has made the appointments in the cases involved
herein, and the Secretary of Local Government is only the transmitter or communicator
of said appointments.

The composition of the local legislative body for the cities is
governed by Section 3, paragraph 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 (An Act Providing for the Elective or Appointive
Positions in various Local Governments and for other Purposes) –

“Sec. 3.  Cities – There shall be in each city such
elective local officials as provided in their respective charters, including
the city mayor, the city vice-mayor, and the elective members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, all of
whom shall be elected by the qualified voters in the city.  In addition thereto, there shall be
appointive sangguniang panlungsod
members consisting of the president of the city association of barangay councils, the president of the city federation of
the kabataang barangay, and
one representative each from the agricultural and industrial labor sectors who
shall be appointed by the president, wherever, as determined by the sangguniang panlungsod, said
sectors are of sufficient number in the city to warrant representation.”

The aforequoted provision of law is
complemented by Section 173 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) which provides that:

“Sec. 173.  Composition and Compensation – (1) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the
legislative body of the city shall be composed of the vice-mayor, as presiding
officer, the elected sangguniang panlungsod
members, and the members who may be appointed by the President of the
Philippines consisting of the presidents of the katipunang
panlungsod ng mga barangay and the kabataang barangay city
federation.”

xxx               xxx                   xxx

“(5)  In addition thereto, there shall be one
representative each from the agricultural and industrial labor sectors who
shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines, whenever as determined
by the sangguniang panlungsod,
said sectors are of sufficient number in the city to warrant representation,
after consultation with associations and persons belonging to the sector
concerned.”

On the other hand, the local legislative body for the
municipalities is provided for in Section 146 of B.P. Blg.
337, as follows:

“Section 146.  Composition – (1) The Sangguniang Bayan
shall be the legislative body of the municipality and shall be composed of the
municipal mayor, who shall be the presiding judge pro tempore,
eight members elected at large, and the members appointed
by the President consisting of the president of the katipunang
bayan and the president of the kabataang barangay
municipal federation.

“(2)  In addition
thereto, there shall be one representative each from the agricultural and
industrial labor sectors who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines
whenever, as determined by the Sangguniang Bayan, said sectors are of sufficient number in the
municipality to warrant representation, after consultation with associations
and persons belonging to the sector concerned.”

But can the President or the Secretary of the Department of Local
Government make the designation/appointment without any enabling law pursuant
to Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution?  The petitioners argue that this cannot be
done.

This argument is untenable. 
Contrary to petitioners’ theory, the phrase “as may be prescribed
by law” is not prospective in character. 
Section 9 commands that all legislative bodies of local governments must
have sectoral representatives among its members, and
the appointment or designation of individuals thereto must be done in
accordance with provisions of law, whether that law exists or has still to be
passed.  But in this case that law
already exists in B.P. Blg. 337 particularly Sections
146 and 173 quoted earlier.

It is well-settled that the word “may” is an auxiliary
verb showing, among others, opportunity or possibility.  Under ordinary circumstances, the phrase
“may be” implies the possible existence of something.  (Capati v. Ocampo, 113 SCRA 794, 796) 
In this case, the “something” is a law governing sectoral representation. 
The phrase in question should, therefore, be understood to mean as
prescribed by such law that governs the matter at the time this Constitution is
ratified or that could be enacted thereafter. 
The phrase does not and cannot, by its very wording, restrict itself to
the uncertainty of future legislation. 
This interpretation would defeat the very purpose of immediately including
sectoral representatives in the law?making
bodies of local governments.  Otherwise,
in the interreqnum, from the ratification of
the Constitution until the passage of the appropriate statute, a large and
important segment of the municipalities, the barangays,
the youth sectors, the industrial and agricultural labor sectors would have no
voice in the formulation of legislation that would directly affect their
individual members.

In any event B.P. Blg. 337 is still
operative, even after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, because the
Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) provides for the continued operation of
all existing laws, etc. not inconsistent with it –

“Sec. 3.  All existing laws, decrees, executives
orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances
not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended,
repealed or revoked.”

B.P. Blg.  337 is not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.  Neither has it been expressly or impliedly
amended, repealed or revoked.  Clearly,
therefore, it is still in effect.  (Reyes
v. Ferrer, 156 SCRA 314, 318)

The other argument of petitioners is – assuming the Secretary of
the Department of Local Government has the power to designate/appoint such sectoral representatives, still the designations made by
respondent Secretary for members to represent the Industrial and Labor Sectors
are null and void ab initio
as they were not made in the manner required by the same law.

This argument is meritorious.

B.P. Blg. 337 explicitly requires that
before the President (or the Secretary of the Department of Local Government)
may appoint members of the local legislative bodies to represent the Industrial
and Agricultural Labor Sectors, there must be a determination to be made by the
Sanggunian itself that said sectors are of sufficient
number in the city or municipality to warrant representation after consultation
with associations and persons belonging to the sector concerned.

For that matter, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
Local Government Code even prescribe the time and manner by which such
determination is to be conducted by the Sanggunian.  Thus, Section 4(c), Rule XVI of said Rules
provides that:

“Unless otherwise provided by law, the election/appointment of
representatives of the agricultural and industrial labor sectors of the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, shall be in accordance with the following guidelines
issued by the Ministry (now Secretary) of Local Government.

“1)  Within thirty (30) days after the first
regular session of the sanggunian following the
election of the members, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan shall determine if any or both agricultural and
industrial labor sectors exist and, if so, whether they are sufficient in
number as to warrant representation in the sanggunian.  If representation is warranted, the sangguniang concerned shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, call the members of the sectors for consultation which shall be
held not earlier than ten (10) days after written notice thereof has been made
to the members, either in the form of individual service or proper posting in
the city/municipal hall, in the public market and in at least three (3)
conspicuous places in the locality which are usually frequented by and/or
accessible to residents.  On the date and
time set in the notice, the members of said sectors shall be convened and they
shall choose among themselves by consensus three (3) recommendees
of each sector.  If representation is not
warranted, the sanggunian concerned shall, in a
resolution inform the Minister (now Secretary) of Local Government to that
effect.”

Consequently, in cases where the Sanggunian
concerned has not yet determined that the Industrial and Agricultural Labor
Sectors in their particular city or municipality are of sufficient number to
warrant representation, there will absolutely be no basis for the designations/
appointments.

Significantly, in this regard, the Office of the Solicitor
General in a Manifestation and Motion dated November 23, 1989 took the view that as a general rule,
such prior determination by the Sangguniang itself is
a condition sine qua non to a valid appointment.

On the question of qualification of the appointee, We ruled in the cases of Ignacio v. Banate,
Jr. and Reyes v. Ferrer (supra) that the appointee to
the Sanggunian who sits there as a representative
must meet the qualifications required by law for the position.

The Constitution does not prescribe the qualifications for the
position of sectoral representatives (for the
Industrial and Agricultural Sectors) to the local legislative bodies.  However, the use of the term “sectoral representation” implies that the person to be
appointed must possess the necessary qualifications to represent that particular
sector.  At the very least, the appointee
must actually belong to the sector which he purports to represent,
otherwise there can be no true representation.

That the appointee must belong to the sector which he seeks to
represent is further made clear in Sections 146 and 173 of B.P. Blg. 337 which require a determination by the sanggunian that the agricultural and industrial labor
sectors are of sufficient number to warrant representation.  And in the process of such inquiry the sanggunian is enjoined by law to consult with associations
and persons belonging to the sector concerned. 
Consultation with the sector concerned is made a prerequisite
considering that those who belong to said sector are the ones primarily
interested in being represented in the sanggunian.  It is, therefore,
quite obvious that the person appointed as such representative must actually
belong to the sector which he seeks to represent and whose interest and welfare
he is duty bound to protect.

As to representatives of the youth sector, Association of Barangay Councils and Kabataang Barangay Federation, Sec. 3 par. 1 of B.P. Blg. 51 and Sec. 173 par. 1 of B.P. Blg.
337 (both earlier quoted) require that they must have been presidents or
officers of said sector or barangay.

RULINGS

G.R. NO.
84663

Private respondent Marissa Domantay has
never been elected as Kabataang Barangay
Provincial Federation President of Pangasinan, a
basic qualification for appointment as member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan representing the youth sector.  (Section 132 of B.P. Blg.
337)

Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution of 1986,
Proclamation No. 3 of President Corazon C. Aquino
provides:

“All elective and appointive officials and employees under the
1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by
proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and
qualification of their successors, if such is made within a period of one year
from February 25, 1986.”

The petitioner, as one who was appointed under the 1973
Constitution continues in office until the appointment and qualification of his
successor.  Since the appointment of his
successor, respondent Marissa Domantay, is not valid,
the tenure of petitioner Johnny Supangan, Jr. can not
be terminated on that basis alone.

G.R. NO.
85012

The president of the local barangay association, or katipunang bayan is made a member of the Sangguniang
Bayan under Section 146 (1) of B.P. Blg. 337, earlier quoted. 
Private respondent de Guzman as the ABC president is therefore
qualified.

G.R. NO.
86393

There is no certification from the Sangguniang
Bayan of Valenzuela that the sectors concerned are of
sufficient number to warrant representation and there was no consultation
whatsoever with the associations and persons belonging to the Industrial and
Agricultural Labor sectors.  Therefore,
the appointment of private respondents Romeo F. Bularan
and Rafael Cortez are null and void.

G.R. NO.
87601

Petitioners’ appointments as representatives for the Agricultural
and Industrial Labor sectors are null and void there being no prior
determination by the Sanggunian that these sectors
are of sufficient number to warrant representation.  Likewise, there was no consultation with the
members of the sectors concerned. 
Therefore, the petition for mandamus filed by petitioners should
be dismissed.

G.R. NO.
87602

The appointment of Antonio Gomez is null and void, first he is
not qualified to represent the agricultural sector — he was a defeated
candidate for councilor in the last election in Angeles City and is publicly
known as engaged in the trade of repairing air conditioning units and
refrigerators but never has he been engaged in farming or in agricultural work
and the like; second, there was no prior determination of the sufficiency in
number of the agricultural sector to warrant representation and third, there
was no consultation with the members or associations of the sector concerned.

G.R.  NO. 87792

The appointments of petitioners are null and void, first, there
was no prior determination of the sufficiency in number of the sector concerned
and consultation with such members, and second, the appointees are not
qualified.

(a) Tagumpay Eusebio
was appointed to represent the association of barangay
councils (ABC representative).  But he
was not the president of the Katipunan Panlungsod ng mga
Barangay at the time of his appointment.  Neither is he the incumbent president of such
association.

(b) With respect to petitioner Daniel O. Castillo, he was
appointed on February 8, 1989
as a member of respondent council representing the Kabataang
Barangay Federation of the City of Manila.  As in the case of Eusebio,
Mr. Castillo is not the president of the Kabataang Barangay Federation in Manila.

(c) In the case of petitioner Baluyot
who was appointed to represent the Industrial Labor sector, he is a politician,
not a labor leader as in fact he had in the past been a member of the City
Council of Manila.  Just recently, he
applied for the position of assistant secretary to respondent council but met
some objections.  He is not a leader of
any labor federation or experienced in matters of labor.

(d) Petitioner Jonathan Mangaya was
appointed member of respondent council to represent the Agricultural Labor
sector.  Like Mr. Baluyot,
petitioner Mangaya is not a farmer, an agriculturist
or head of any farmer’s group — he is a politician.  He ran in the last local election for the
position of city councilor of Manila
but lost.

This petition for mandamus is therefore without any legal
and factual basis and should be dismissed.

G.R. NO.
87935

The private respondents, Soriano and Costales are not qualified to represent the industrial and
agricultural sectors, respectively.  They
are politicians as in fact they ran and lost in the last local election.  Besides, the appointments were made without
prior determination and consultation as required by B.P. Blg.
337.

G.R. NO.
89072

The appointments of respondents Heracleo
Dumadag, Jr. and Felix Tiukinhoy
as sectoral representatives are null and void, there
being no prior certification from the Sangguniang Panlungsod that the sectors concerned are of sufficient
number as to warrant representation. 
Besides, said respondents are not qualified.

Respondent Tiukinhoy who was appointed
to represent the agricultural sector is not a farmer.  He devoted all his life to government
service.  In fact, he is a government
retiree having retired as Land Transportation Registrar of the Land
Transportation Office, Surigao
City.

On the other hand, respondent Dumadag
who was to represent the industrial labor sector of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Surigao City
is not from Surigao
City but of Marga,
Tubod, Surigao del Norte.  In the
last local elections, he was a candidate for mayor in the Municipality
of Tubod,
Surigao del Norte and lost.

G.R. NO.
90205

As admitted by petitioners, the Sangguniang
Bayan of Binalonan, Pangasinan passed a resolution recommending the
appointments of respondents Tambo and Sison as members of the said body representing the
agricultural and industrial labor sectors respectively.  And long before the aforesaid resolution was
passed, there was actually consultation made with the sectors involved and the barangay officials and the names of respondents Tambo and Sison came out as
possible sectoral representatives.  Petitioners also do not question the
qualifications of respondents. 
Therefore, their appointments must be held legal and valid.

Finally, anent the contention of some of the petitioners that there
was failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
suffice it to state that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not an inflexible rule.  In fact, it
yields to many accepted exceptions.  Exhaustion is not necessary where inter
alia there is estoppel
on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; where the amount involved is relatively small so as
to make the rule impractical and oppressive; and where the question involved is
purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided anyway by the courts of
law.  (Rocamora
v. RTC – Cebu, Branch VIII,
167 SCRA 615-623)  The doctrine of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is also not applicable to a case of a
department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President
bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter.  (Bertulata v. Peralta,
Jr. 59 SCRA 7)

The cases at bar fall within the exception.  As can be gleaned from the above discussions,
the other questions involved in these cases are purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by this Court. 
But most importantly, what is being questioned is the power and
authority delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Local Government by
the President.  Surely then, an appeal
and/or review to the executive head, in this case, the Office of the President
will definitely be impractical, not feasible and a mere exercise in futility.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations,
judgment is hereby rendered –

A. GRANTING

1.  G.R. No. 84663.  The appointment of respondent Marissa Domantay as member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Pangasinan
representing the youth sector is declared null and void, and petitioner Johnny Supangan, Jr. is ordered reinstated.

2.  G.R. No. 86393.  The appointments of private respondents Romeo
Bularan and Rafael Cortez to the Sangguniang
Bayan of Valenzuela, Metro Manila as representatives
of the Industrial and Agricultural Labor sectors are declared null and void.

3.  G.R. No. 87602.  The appointment of Antonio B. Gomez as member
of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Angeles City
representing the agricultural labor sector is declared null and void.

4.  G.R. No. 87935.  The appointments of Felix D. Soriano and Carlito S. Costales to the Sangguniang Bayan of Urdaneta, Pangasinan representing the industrial and agricultural
sectors, respectively are declared null and void.

5.  G.R. No. 89072.  The appointments of respondents Heracleo Dumadag, Jr. and Felix Tiukinhoy as representatives of the industrial and
agricultural sectors, respectively, of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Surigao, are declared null and
void.

B. DISMISSING:

1.  G.R. No. 85012.  Consequently, the appointment of respondent
Domingo R. de Guzman to the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig, Metro Manila as barangay representative is declared legal and valid.

2.  G.R. No. 87601.  The appointments of petitioners, Pacifico Go and Arturo del Pozo to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ozamis
City, representing the agricultural
and industrial labor sectors are declared null and void.  Therefore, their petition for mandamus
has no legal and factual basis.

3.  G.R. No. 87792.  The appointments of petitioners Juan Baluyot for Industrial Labor, Tagumpay
Eusebio for Association of Barangay
Councils, Daniel Castillo as Kabataang Barangay Federation representative and Jonathan Mangaya representing the Agricultural labor sector to the
City Council of Manila, are declared null and void.  Consequently, mandamus will not lie to
compel respondents to recognize them as such representatives.

4.  G.R. No. 90205.  The appointments of respondents Arcadio Tambo and Pablo Sison to the Sangguniang Bayan of Binalonan, Pangasinan representing the agricultural and industrial
sectors, respectively, are declared legal and valid.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes,
Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., in the
results, disagrees with the dictum that a “politician” cannot be a labor
leader, farmer, industrialist, etc. at the same time.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.