EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32436 September 9, 1970
ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, petitioner. In re: Validity of Section 4 and Section 8(a), paragraph 2, Republic Act 6132.
G.R. No. L-32439 September 9, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATORY RELIEF RE: VALIDITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY REPUBLIC ACT 6132, HON. GUARDSON LOOD Judge, CFI Pasig, Rizal, et al., petitioners.
Abelardo Subido in his own behalf.
Quezon City Fiscal Justiniano P. Cortez and Fidel Manalo for petitioners Judge Guardson Lood, et al.
Lorenzo Tañada, Arturo Tolentino, Emmanuel Pelaez and Jovito Salonga as amici curiae.
Separate Opinions
ZALDIVAR, J., dissenting:
Like my worthy colleague, Mr. Justice Antonio Barredo, I hold the view that when the Congress of the Philippines, on March 16, 1967, acting as a constituent body pursuant to Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, approved Resolution No. 2, which, among others, provides in Section 3 thereof the following:
SEC. 3. The office of the Delegate shall be honorary and shall be compatible with any other public office: Provided, That Delegates who do not receive any salary from the government shall be entitled to a per diem of fifty pesos for every day of attendance in the Convention or in any of its committees: Provided, however, That every Delegate shall be entitled to necessary travelling expenses to and from his place of residence when attending sessions of the Convention or of its committees.
the intention and purpose of Congress acting as a constituent body, was to permit any person holding a public office or position, whither elective1 or appointive,2 to be a candidate for delegate to the constitutional convention, which was set for the second Tuesday of November, 1970, without resigning from his office or being considered resigned from office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Mr. Justice Barredo has elaborately discussed the reasons for holding that view, and I fully concur with him in the arguments that he adduced in support of the view. I only wish to add a few thoughts to what have been expressed by Mr. Justice Barredo.
I have taken note of the fact that in Act 4125, passed by the Ninth Philippine Legislature, known as the Convention Law of 1934, Section 2 thereof provides as follows:
SEC. 2. The office of delegate shall be honorary and shall be compatible with any other public office not subject to the civil service rules.
It is undisputed that when Act 4125 was enacted on May 26, 1934, there were existing civil service rules which were promulgated by the Director of the Bureau of Civil Service in the exercise of his powers under Section 661 of the Revised Administrative Code. It is clear that the legislative intent then, as clearly stated in the aforequoted Section 2 of Act 4125 was to consider the office of delegate to the constitutional convention as compatible with any other public office not subject to the civil service rules at the time of the enactment of said law. In other words, under that law a person holding an office subject to civil service rules was prohibited from holding the office of delegate to the convention without forfeiting the public office that he was then holding.
It will be noted that when, both Houses of Congress of the Philippines, assembled in joint session and acting as a constituent body on March 16, 1967, approved Resolution No. 2, the first sentence of Section 3 of the said resolution used the same words as the provisions of Section 2 of Act No. 4125 of the Philippine Legislature, except that the words "not subject to the civil service rules" were eliminated.ℒαwρhi৷ To me, the elimination of the words "not subject to the civil, service rules," in Section 3 of Resolution No. 2 is a clear indication of the intention of the Congress of the Philippines, as a constituent body, to allow any person holding a public office, including an office subject to civil service rules, to be a candidate for the office of delegate to the constitutional convention and to hold office as such delegate without forfeiting the office that he presently holds. It is my humble view that this intention of Congress, acting as a constituent body, as indicated by the elimination of the words "not subject to the civil service rules" is in consonance with the idea, which I observed, that opportunity should be afforded all capable and qualified persons in our country to participate in the great task of amending, if not altogether redrafting completely, the Constitution of our Republic. I do not share the view of the majority of the Court that to allow government officials and employees to campaign for the convention, and, if elected, to sit as delegates without vacating their positions would be detrimental to the government and to public interest. While there may be several thousands of persons who may run as candidates for delegate to the convention, there are only 320 that will be elected. And I do not believe that there will be hundreds of those who are now in the government service who will run as candidates for delegates to the convention. Certainly not all that will be elected as delegates to the convention will be persons presently holding a public office. There will be very many, and most likely the preponderant number, who will be elected as delegates who will come from the private sector, or who are not government officials or employees. It may be that during the two-month period of campaign persons who are in the government service may temporarily leave their respective offices in order to campaign, but it cannot be denied that there will always be officials or employees who can temporarily assume the duties of their respective offices during the period of the campaign. Likewise, I do not share the fear that if those who are in the government service would get elected and assume their duties as delegates to the convention, the work in the government would be disrupted because the convention may last for an indeterminate period of time. This fear is more apparent than real. As I have adverted to, of the 320 delegates that will be elected to the constitutional convention, not all of them would come from the ranks of those who are now holding office in the government.
It is my humble view that the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act 6132 is null and void because it is inconsistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 2, as amended by Resolution No. 4. I consider the provisions of Section 8(a) paragraph 2 as corollary to the provisions of Section 4 of the same act, and, therefore, said Section 8(a) paragraph 2 is also inconsistent with Resolution No. 2, and is null and void.
In view of what I have hereinabove stated, in addition to the views expressed by Mr. Justice Barredo in his concurring and dissenting opinion in so far as they refer to Section 4 of Republic Act 6132, I dissent from the opinion of the majority of the Court.ℒαwρhi৷
Footnotes
1 Except Senators and Representatives, because in the plebiscite held on November 14, 1967 the electorate disapproved Resolution No. 3 of Congress, acting as a constituent body, which sought to amend Section 16, Article VI of the Constitution so as to authorize Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the convention without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
2 Those subject to civil service rules and regulations pursuant to the Civil Service law.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
