Alba v Evangelista January 1, 1954: President appointed Vicente Alajar as Vice-Mayor of Roxas City; January 6: Assumed office; March

31: Affirmed by Commission on Appointments November 1955: He received word from Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique Quema, stating that the President had designated Juliano Alba to the position, asking Alajar to turn over the office to Alba. Alba likewise received word of his appointment from Executive Secretary Fred Ruiz Castro. Alajar instituted quo warranto proceedings, stating: 1. Alba usurped the vice mayor office. 2. There was no vacancy at the time of appointment

2. Not declaring without the necessity of making a pronouncement

of its validity, that RA 608 was intended to exclude the office of Roxas City from persons belonging to the unclassified service 3. Not declaring that n the case of Jover v Borra, SC passd upon the validity of section 8. 4. Holding that the office of vice-mayor is neither primarily confidential nor policy-determining

5. Not holding that RA 603 section 9 was a valid exercise of

Congress by the Constitution. Alajar contends that RA 603 section 8 was incompatible with the constitutional inhibition that no officer or employee in the Civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law and that the two provisions were repugnant and irreconcilable. Issue: WON section 8 of RA 603 was constitutional. Yes. While section 8 of RA 603 is seemingly incompatible with the constitution that prohibits removal, the court makes a distinction between removal and expiration of tenure. The vice mayor office was created in Congress to be held at the pleasure of the President. The constitution only refers to fixed terms. (Interpreting it that way would make the statute valid as opposed to Alajars interpretation. Assuming but not conceding a gray area in the law, there was still clearly room for a valid interpretation, which the courts take because of the presumption of constitutionality.) For anyone to argue against the constitutionality of a statute, it must be shown that the statute violates the constitution clearly, palpably, plainly, and in such manner as to leave no hesitation in the mind of the court. The court presumes every statute is valid, based on the theory of separation of powers. Held: Petition affirmed. Lower court decision is reversed, Alba is Vice Mayor. Super Digest: Presumption of Constitutionality

3. There was no legal cause or reason for the removal of Alajar

Lower Court: Alajar could keep the position. Alba appealed. In the meantime, Alajar filed a petition for execution of judgment, granted by the court, but the decision was not executed because Alba appealed to the SC. Supreme Court: Alba asked for a preliminary injuction from Alajar taking the position, until the final decision was made. Solicitor General: wanted to intervene because he was not able to defend the constitutionality of RA 603 in the lower court. Section 8 of RA 603 declares the vice mayorship of Roxas city to be terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority Alba argued that the trial court erred: 1. Predicated decision on mistaken assumption that Alba belonged to the unclassified civil service

Vice Mayor of Roxas, Alajar, was replaced by Alba under directions of the President. Alajar contested saying that RA 603 section 8 (which made the vice mayorship tenure not fixed but at the pleasure of the appointing officer) was not constitutional because the constitution didnt allow removal without just cause. Affirmed by lower court. The Supreme Court was still able to interpret the statute in a manner that would make in constitutional they stated the constitution only referred to removal from fixed terms. Since the vice mayorship was never a fixed term, it was merely an expiration of tenure and not removal. RA 603 section 8 did not go against the constitution. Decision reversed. Alba is vice mayor.