[ G.R. No. 20508. May 16, 1963 ] 118 Phil. 1; 61 OG 3550 (June, 1965)
[ G.R. No. 20508. May 16, 1963 ]
GENARO VISARRA, PETITIONER VS. CESAR MIRAFLOR, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, C.J.:
The parties hereto are litigating over the position of third member of the Commission on Elections, which according to the Constitution, consists of one chairman and two members. Actual chairman is the incumbent Hon. Juan V. Borra; the undisputed incumbent member is Hon. Sixto Brillantes.
In establishing the Commission, the Constitution provided that the Commissioners shall hold office for nine years and may not be reappointed. However, it also provided that of those first appointed, " one shall hold office for nine years, another for six years and the third for three years."
Since 1941, changes occurred in the membership of the Commission. And in March 1955, in a similar dispute [Republic vs. Imperial] [a], we had occasion to discuss the terms of office and the tenure of said officers. We held that the term of the first chairman (Jose Lopez Vito, 9 years) began on June 21, 1941, and ended on June 20, 1950 [b] ; that the term of the second member (Francisco Enage, 6 years) began on June 21, 1941, and ended June 20, 1947 [b]; and that of the third member (3 years-left vacant) began on June 21, 1941 to terminate June 20, 1944. Proceeding further, we held that when in 1945 Vicente de Vera was appointed member, he must have been placed in the only vacant position at that time, namely, the position whose term expired in June 1944 (third member)-and that he must be deemed to have been appointed to a nine-year term (expiring June 1953), which is the term given by law to all commissioners[c] appointed after June 20, 1944. Then upon the first vacancy by expiration of the initial 6-year term (second member) and the cessation of Commissioner Enage in November 1949[d], Rodrigo Perez was appointed (December 1949) to the nine-year term expiring in June 1956. Afterwards, in May 1947, chairman Jose Lopez Vito died before the expiration of his full term. To succeed him as chairman, Commissioner de Vera was appointed-which appointment, we held, could only be for the unexpired period of Lopez Vito’s original term, i. e., up to June 20, 1950. To fill the vacancy of third member arising upon Vera’s assumption of the chairmanship, Leopoldo Rovira was appointed member on May 22, 1947, and his tenure of office could not legally extend beyond that of former Commissioner Vera: June 20, 1953 [e]. Upon expiration of Chairman Vera’s term on June 20, 1950, Domingo Imperial assumed the office with a term due to expire on June 20, 1959.
Thus the line of succession, terms of office and tenure of the chairman and members of the Commission as of March 1955, may be outlined as follows:
Incumbent
Office Term
Tenure
Chairman (9-yr. original)
Lopez Vito
V. Vera
D. Imperial
June 21, 1941 to
June 20, 1950
June 1950 to June 1959
June 1941 to May 1947
May 1947 to June 1950
June 1950 to June 1959
Second Member (6-yr. original)
F. Enage
R. Perez
June 21, 1941 to June 29, 1947
June 1947 to June 1956
June 1941 to June 1947[x]
Dec. 1949 to June 1956
Third Member (3-yr. original)
Vacant
Vera
Rovira[z]
June 1941 to June 1944
June 1944 to June 1953
July 1945 to May 1947
May 1947 to June 1953
To repeat, this was the legal state of affairs in the Commission on Elections in March 1955 when our aforesaid decision was promulgated.[ee]
Thereafter, in May 1955, the President appointed Gaudencio Garcia a member for a term expiring June 20, 1962 to succeed Leopoldo Rovira, who died in office in September 1954[f]; in December 1956, Sixto Brillantes was appointed member to succeed Rodrigo Perez; and in May 1958, Jose P. Carag was appointed to succeed Domingo Imperial (resigned) as chairman; Carag’s term and tenure ended in June 1959; and on May 12, 1960, the President appointed Garcia as Chairman to hold office up to June 1962, and the latter assumed the chairmanship accordingly.
On May 12, 1960, Genaro Visarra, was also appointed member of the Commission. Then in August 1962, Juan V. Borra was named chairman to succeed Garcia, whose tenure expired in June 1962. And in November 1962, the President appointed Miraflor as member, on the assumption that Visarra’s term of office had expired in June 1962.
In this suit, Visarra challenges the right of Miraflor to hold (as against him) the office of member.
It was admitted at the oral argument that if we follow the holding and the implication of our decision in Republic vs. Imperial, supra, the respondent Miraflor must be declared the winner. Indeed, in said decision, we established three lines of succession, to wit: (1) that of the chairman; (2) that of the second member, Enage; and (3) that of the third member (see outline above).
Garcia in May 1960, was in the third line of succession, his term of office and tenure to expire in June 1962. When he was appointed chairman in May 1960, he left that line and entered the line of succession of the chairman, with his tenure still to expire on June 1962[g]. Therefore, upon his appointment, Visarra merely occupied the position vacated by Garcia[h] whose fixed term of office (third member) expired on June 20, 1962.[hh] Visarra’s latter-appointment[i] could neither affect nor extend such fixed term of office (of Garcia in the third line).
Visarra claims, however, that when Garcia was appointed chairman, he did not leave his position in the third line of succession but continued therein; so that the vacant position which he (Visarra) filled was the one left by Carag, the fixed term of which is due to expire in 1968; and that, consequently, Borra should be deemed to occupy the position left by Garcia in the third line. The flaw in the argument is that it contradicts our ruling in Republic vs. Imperial, supra. There we held that when Commissioner Vera was appointed Chairman, he left the third line of succession to enter the first, viz, that of the Chairman; and upon his assumption of the Chairmanship, his position as member became vacant . We now fail to perceive any valid reason to change our views on that point, according to which Garcia must be held to have left his line to assume the position of Chairman. Stare decisis - not mere obiter dictum.
In other words, and graphically to demonstrate the three lines of succession continuing after March 1955-as we see them:
Incumbent
Office Term
Tenure
Chairman (9-yr. original)
Carag
Garcia
Borra
June 1950 to June 1959
June 1959 to
June 1968
May 1958 to June 1959
May 1960 to June 1962
Aug. 1962 to June 1968
Second Member (6-yr. original)
Perez
Brillantes
June 1947 to June 1956
June 1956 to June 1965
Dec. 1949 to June 1956
Dec. 1956 to June 1965
Third Member (3-yr. original)
Garcia
Vissara
Miraflor
June 1953 to June 1962
June 1962 to June 1971
May 1955 to May 1960
May 1960 to June 1962
Oct. 1962 to June 1971
Note: For convenience, date of appointment - not qualification - is noted here.
It is true that Visarra’s appointment was extended expressly for a term of office ending June 20, 1968; but as explained in our decision of Republic vs. Imperial, such appointment could only be for a position whose term would expire in June 1962, because that was the only vacant position, inasmuch as the term due to expire in June 1968 (for the chairman) was then occupied by Chairman Garcia.[j]
As a result of the foregoing, and to be specific, we declare: Chairman Borra occupies the position of Chairman, with a term expiring June 20, 1968, and his tenure beginning August 1962 ends on June 20, 1968[k]; the position of Member Brillantes carries a term that expires June 20, 1965 and his tenure should end on the same date; and the term for the position of Member Miraflor expires June 1971, his tenure expiring on the same date.
It may be necessary to add that although the appointment of the chairman or of the member (subsequent to those originally appointed in the nineteen forties) is generally for a term of nine years, his tenure can not extend beyond the fixed term for the position he is supposed to occupy[l] ; in the fixed line of succession we have heretofore indicated, in accordance with the evident intention of the pertinent Constitutional provisions.
WHEREFORE, in line with the foregoing considerations, this quo warranto proceedings should be and is hereby dismissed. No. costs.
Padilla, Labrador, and Regala, JJ., concur.