Search
Home
Saved
0
92 views
Upload
Sign In
RELATED TITLES
0
De Leon vs Esguerra Case Digest(1) Uploaded by Marichris Zosa
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines News
Documents
Sheet Music
pesons case
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
101506972 Outline in
1
of 1
exam
The Philippine Constitution in
Search document
DE LEON vs ESGUERRA Case Digest ALFREDO M. DE LEON VS. HON. GOVERNOR BENJAMIN ESGUERRA G.R. NO. 78059 AUGUST 31, 1987
FACTS: An original action of prohibition was instituted by Alfredo M. De Leon, as Barangay Captain of Dolo other baranggay councilmen for the memorandum ordered by Gover ner Benjamin Esguerra in replacing the
On February 9. 1987, Alfredo M. De Leon received a memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 des officers barangay captain and barangay councilmen by authority of the Minister of Local Government gr 1986 provisional constitution.
The Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), t office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successo elected and shall have qualified," or up to June 7, 1988. It is also their position that with the ratification Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their
However, the respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolis petitioners continued in office by virtue of the following provision:
“All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office un provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualifica successors, if such if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986.”
... and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; and that the provision in the Barangay Elect the term of office of Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have been repealed for being with the aforementioned provision of the Provisional Constitution.
ISSUES: Whether or not the 1986 provisional constitution may be validly recognized? Whether or n constitution was already in effect on February 2, 1987 the day of the actual plebiscite or February announcement?
HELD: The court held that since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there has been no pro executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials. Thus, the issue for resolution is wheth designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period per iod which ende 25, 1987. Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor, we hold that February 8, 197 considered as the effective date of replacement and not December 1, 1986 to which it was antedated, in the dictates of justice.
But while February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one year deadline, the aforementioned pro Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 reading:
"Sec. 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of t he votes cast Master your semester with Scribd held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title & The New York Times Useful Not useful The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, th Cancel anytime.
SpecialConstitution offer for students: Only $4.99/month. must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Gove longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to t he elective positions occupied by p
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
