Pamil v. Teleron

G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978

Facts:

1. In 1971, Private respondent, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was elected and duly

proclaimed as mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. Petitioner filed a suit for quo

warranto, to disqualify respondent based on Section 2175 of the Administrative

Code provision: "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office

ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation

from provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the

municipality."

2. The suit did not prosper, with the lower court held that the ineligibility was

impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971. The matter was then elevated to

this Tribunal by petitioner. It is his contention that there was no such implied repeal,

that it is still in full force and effect. Thus was the specific question raised.

ISSUE: Whether or not an ecclesiastic was eligible to an elective municipal

position

NO. The attack on the continuing effectivity of Section 2175 having failed, it must

be, as noted at the outset, given full force and application. Section 2175 of the

Revised Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must be

accorded respect. The presumption of validity calls for its application. Under the

circumstances, certiorari lies.

__________________________________________________________________

FORTUNATO R. PAMIL vs. HONORABLE VICTORINO C. TELERON and

REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978

CASE DIGEST

Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected to the position of municipal

mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly proclaimed. A suit for quo

warranto was then filed by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for his

disqualification based on this Administrative Code provision: "In no case shall there

be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service,

persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or

contractors for public works of the municipality." The suit did not prosper,

respondent Judge sustaining the right of Father Gonzaga to the office of municipal

mayor. He ruled that such statutory ineligibility was impliedly repealed by the

Election Code of 1971. The matter was then elevated to this Tribunal by petitioner.

It is his contention that there was no such implied repeal, that it is still in full force

and effect. Thus was the specific question raised.

ISSUE WON the disqualification of the respondent based on Administrative Code

provision Constitutional

HELD: The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it

declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its face,

inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so

exclude them is to impose a religious test. Here being an ecclesiastic and therefore

professing a religious faith suffices to disqualify for a public office. There is thus an

incompatibility between the Administrative Code provision relied upon by petitioner

and an express constitutional mandate.

__________________________________________________________________

PAMIL v TELERON

A priest, Father Margarito Gonzaga, was elected municipal mayor of Albuquerque,

Bohol. One of the losing candidates filed a petition to have him disqualified based

on the Admin Code provision saying that ecclesiastics shall not be appointed to a

municipal office. The lower court sustained the right of Fr. Gonzaga to the office,

saying that such statutory ineligibility was impliedly repealed by the Election Code

of 1971.

Held: Lower court decision overturned. Seven SC justices believed the lower courts

judgment should be affirmed because the challenged provision was no longer

operative, either because it was superseded by the 1935 Constitution or repealed.

But five believed that the prohibition was against priests running for elective office

was constitutional. Because eight votes were needed to render the provision

ineffective, the SC had to apply the presumption of validity and overturn the lower

courts decision.