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repealed by the Election Code of 1971.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

Political Law
–
Inviolability of the Separation of Church and State
In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest, won the election for mayoralty in Albuquerque, Bohol.
He was also proclaimed as a mayor therein. Pamil, a rival candidate file a quo warranto case
against Gonzaga questioning the eligibility of Gonzaga. He argued that as provided for in the
Revised Administrative
Code; “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.” In this case, the elected mayor is a priest. However,
Judge Teleron ruled that the Administrative Code is repealed by the Election Code of 1971
which allowed the prohibitions of the revised administrative code. ISSUE: Whether or not the
Revised Administrative Code is no longer operative? HELD: Decision is indecisive, the said law,
in the deliberations of the court, failed to obtain the majority vote of eight (8) which is needed
in order for this law to be binding upon the parties in this case. For this, the petition must be
granted and the decision of the lower court reversed and set aside. Fr. Gonzaga is hereby
ordered to vacate the mayoralty position. It is also pointed out that how can one who
swore to serve the Church‟s interest ab
ove all be in duty to enforce state policies which at times may conflict with church tenets. This
is in violation of the separation of the church and state. The Revised Administrative Code still
stands because there is no implied repeal.
Dissenting Opinion
J. Teehankee
–
The Comelec ruled that soldiers in active service and persons receiving salaries or
compensation from provincial or national funds “are obviously now allowed to run for a public
elective
office because under Sec. 23 of the Election Code of
1971 „every person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of
the Armed Forces‟ shall ipso facto cease in their office or
position on the date they file their certificates of candidacy. This implies that they are no longer
disqualified from running for an elective office.” The Comelec further ruled that as to the two
remaining categories formerly banned under the Revised Administrative Code, “ecclesiastics
and contractors for
public works of the municipality are allowed to run for municipal elective offices under the
maxim,
„Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius‟, they being not included in the enumeration of persons
ineligible
under the New Election Code. The rule is that all persons possessing the necessary
qualifications, e
xcept those expressly disqualified by the election code, are eligible to run for public office.”
http://www.uberdigests.info FORTUNATO R. PAMIL vs. HONORABLE VICTORINO C. TELERON
and REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978 FORTUNATO R.
PAMIL vs. HONORABLE VICTORINO C. TELERON and REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA G.R. No.
L-34854 November 20, 1978 FACTS: Private respondent, 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.
http://tobicasedigest.blogspot.com Aglipay v. Ruiz Digest G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937
Laurel, J.:
Facts: 1. In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would
order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of
the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. 2. The
petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the
fulfilment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, a member of the
Philippine
Bar, to denounce the matter to the President. In spite of the protest of the petitioner‟s
attorney, the
Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the
postage for printing. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part
remained unsold. 3. The further sale was sought to be prevented by the petitioner. He alleged
that the provisions of Section 23, Subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution were violated in
the issuance and selling of the
commemorative postage stamps. It was provided therein that, „No public money or property
shall ever
be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, church, denomination, sectarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit,
or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such,
except when such priest,