Republic of the Philippines

BICOL COLLEGE
PAULINE SHIELA
ALEX BALAORO,
Plaintiffs
-versus-

MEJES

AND

__________________________

NIGEL PAUL D. ARRANZADO

AND SYREN REBUSQUILLO,
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

BRIEF
Defendants, unto this Honorable
respectfully submit their BRIEF, as follows:

Court,

most

I.
THE CASE
Much has been said about the condonation
doctrine. This subject has come into public awareness and
intense scrutiny when Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay,
Jr. invoked the condonation doctrine to stop his suspension
as ordered by the Ombudsman in connection with the
alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Parking building.
The Principle of Condonation goes way back
from 1887, when the US Supreme Court declared that: The
underlying theory is that each term is separate from other
terms, and that the reelection to office operates as a
condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the
extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.
The Supreme Court first introduced the
condonation doctrine into our jurisprudence in the case of
then Mayor Arturo Pascual vs. The Provincial Board of Nueva
Ecija, G.R. L-11959, in 1959. The Court stated that a
reelected public official cannot be removed from his position
for an administrative misconduct committed during his prior
term because his reelection assumes that the people have
forgiven him, and removing him from office overrules the will
of the people.

Brief
Pauline Shiela Mejes and Alex Balaoro Vs. Nigel Paul Arranzado and Syren
Rebusquillo
Page 2 of 5

This case stemmed from the plaintiffs

argument, questioning the Principle of Condonation, arguing
inter alia that it violates or usurps the constitutional power of
the President to grant pardon in administrative cases .
II.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVE
1. Is the Principle of Condonation Unconstitutional.
2. Is the Principle of Condonation VALID.
3. The Applicability of the Principle of Condonation.
IV.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
As to its Constitutionality, Article 2 of the
1987 constitution, Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic
and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them. Democracy is
described as the "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE
PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE". The will of the sovereign is
always supreme. The right to suffrage is the embodiment of
democracy. No one can deny our right to vote as it is the
essence of Democracy. Our right to vote does not end in the
actual shading ballots. The service of our chosen leaders
without hindrance is also a paramount consideration, for us
to have the true essence of such right.
This case questions the validity, constitutionality and
applicability of the Principle of Condonation regarding
elective officials. The Principle of Condonation goes way
back from 1887, when the US Supreme Court declared that:
The underlying theory is that each term is separate from
other terms, and that the reelection to office operates as a
condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the
extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. As
reiterated by the Supreme Court in one case in which it
declared inter alia that: It is not for the court, by reason of
such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of
the people.

Brief
Pauline Shiela Mejes and Alex Balaoro Vs. Nigel Paul Arranzado and Syren
Rebusquillo
Page 3 of 5

The difference however is that the United States of

America has a two party system, which means that the
winning candidate always attain majority percentage of vote
which constitute the will of the people, as oppose to the
Philippines who has a multi-party system which means the
winning candidate garners only a plurality vote which is a
minimal percentage of the voting public. I would like to differ
from this contention, as it will tarnish the dignity of our
election. From that standpoint, it can be inferred from that
standpoint that, election in our country is not the will of the
people as it is not a majority vote that is attained by the
winning candidate. For example in one municipality wherein
there are 5 candidates for mayor, Candidate A garners 30%
of the votes, candidate B garners 20%, candidate C garners
15%, D garners 10%,E had 5% and 20% vote cast was held
blank or invalid. In this case we cannot disregard the vote of
the 30% voting public just because it does not constitute a
strong mandate from the whole populace.
Without a bubble of doubt, the declaration of the
Principle of Condonation as unconstitutional will tarnish or
even violate the right of the people to choose. It will create
fear to the people in choosing their leader. Comelec does not
disqualify a candidate who has a pending administrative
case. If doctrine of condonation is declared unconstitutional
the voting public will fear that their vote might goes up in
smoke, as the candidate who they vote for might just be
dismiss from their elective position. It will tarnish the
essence of the election for it will not reflect the true will of
the people and for those who did not fear, their vote just go
with the trash, as their candidate who won, will later on be
dismiss from his office because of his prior administrative
case from his previous term.
In Aguinaldo vs. santos 1992, the Honorable
Supreme Court declared inter alia that: the Court should
never remove from office for acts done prior to his present
term. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of
their right to elect their officer. When a people have elected
a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with
knowledge of his life and character, and that they

Brief
Pauline Shiela Mejes and Alex Balaoro Vs. Nigel Paul Arranzado and Syren
Rebusquillo
Page 4 of 5

disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had any.

It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct,
to practically overrule the will of the people.
As to its Validity under the doctrine of stare
decisis, that is the law until by force of better reasoning, the
Court erred in adopting the doctrine and decides to overrule
the doctrine. As pointed out above, the will of the people is
always supreme and there can be no better reasoning than
that. Their Right to vote should be given paramount
consideration as ruling in the negative will always be
violative of their right to choose.
Acts done pursuant to a law which was
subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid, but not
when the acts are done after the declaration of
unconstitutionality. The doctrine of Operative Fact is also
meritorious point in this case. The doctrine remains valid
until revoked.
As regards to its applicability, the doctrine of
condonation is rightfully applied to admin cases only, as
dismissal of an elective official will disregard the will of the
public. The Doctrine is not applicable to pending criminal
cases of the public officials for acts they committed in the
previous term (Salalima vs. Guingona, G.R. Nos. 117589-92
May 22, 1996). Reelection of a public official does not bar
prosecution for crimes committed by him prior thereto
(Olivares vs. Judge Villaluz, 156 Phil. 137).Reelection is not
among the modes of extinguishing criminal liability under
the Revised Penal Code.
VII.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS
MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, THAT THE CONDONATION
PRINCIPLE BE UPHELD AND THE PETITION OF THE
PLAINTIFF
TO
DECLARE
THE
SAME
TO
BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BE DISMISSED.

Brief
Pauline Shiela Mejes and Alex Balaoro Vs. Nigel Paul Arranzado and Syren
Rebusquillo
Page 5 of 5

OTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST AND EQUITABLE

UNDER THE FOREGOING PREMISES ARE LIKEWISE
PRAYED FOR.

Daraga, Albay for BICOL COLLEGE, July ___, 2015.

By:

NIGEL PAUL D. ARRANZADO

AND
SYREN REBUSQUILLO
Defendants
Copy furnished:
ATTY. IAN LL. MACASINAG
Professor/JUDGE
Pauline Shiela Mejes And
Alex Balaoro
Plaintiffs