Adopt construction which avoids taint of unconstitutionality

Alba Vs. Evangelista

FACTS:

The President appointed respondent Alajar as the vice-mayor of Roxas City from January 1954 to November
1955 when he received a communication from Assistant Executive Secretary Quema informing him that the
President has designated Juliano Alba as acting Vice-Mayor in his stead. Not satisfied with this, he filed a quo
warranto proceeding against Alba on the ground that his removal from office was illegal and unconstitutional and
won; hence, Alba instituted this appeal.

ISSUE:

WON the designation of a new vice-mayor replacing the incumbent was unconstitutional.

HELD:

NO, it is not unconstitutional. The law in question here is Section 8 of RA No 603 stating among others that,
“… the Vice-Mayor shall be appointed by the President xxx and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President.” A
rule in statutory construction states that, if a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, one making it
unconstitutional and the other valid, the Court should adopt the second interpretation in order to save the measure.
The Court respects the wisdom, integrity and patriotism of the legislative body and the Executive which approved
and thus presumes the validity of laws passed unless it is proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case,
the designation by the President of a new vice-mayor has effectively ended the term of the incumbent Vice-mayor,
as his term of office is at the pleasure of the President. Thus, the designation by the President of a new Vice-mayor is
not unconstitutional.

Role Of Title, Headings And Marginal Notes

People Vs. Yabut

FACTS:

Yabut is a recidivist, having been convicted previously of homicide twice. The present case against him was
instituted when he killed a fellow inmate in the Bilibid Prison. As he is a recidivist, the court applied the provision of
Article 160 was applied to him; however he contends that the title of the said article speaks of committing another
crime while serving his sentence, which for him, should be interpreted as a different crime than that which he is
serving.

ISSUE:

WON Article 160 is applicable to Yabut.

HELD:

Yes, he is liable under Article 160. It is a familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or a treaty is clear
and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resulting to the preamble or headings or epigraphs of a
section for the interpretation of a text especially if such headings or epigraphs are mere catchwords or reference
indicating the general nature of the text that follows. In this case, Yabut’s interpretation that the crime should be
different from that which he is serving has no basis; there is nothing in Article 160 that hints or intimates his
interpretation of the provision. Thus, Article 160 is applicable to Yabut.