Fortunato R. Pamil v. Hon. Victorino C.

Teleron
86 SCRA 413, GR No. L-34854, 20 November 1978
Ponente: Fernando

Page 91

FACTS:
In 1971, Fr. Margarito Gonzaga, a priest, won the election for mayoralty in
Alburquerque, Bohol. He was later proclaimed as mayor therein. Fortunato
Pamil, a rival candidate filed a quo warranto case against Gonzaga
questioning the eligibility of Gonzaga. He argued that as provided for in
Section 2175 of the 1917 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 Victorino

Teleron ruled that the Administrative Code is repealed by the Election Code
of 1971 which now allows ecclesiastics to run.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code of

1917 is no longer operative?

HELD:
The Supreme Court decision was indecisive. Under the 1935 Constitution,
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
If the the doctrine of constitutional supremacy is to be maintained, then
Section 2175 shall not prevail, thus, an ecclesiastic may run for elective
office. However, this issue proved to have divided the Supreme Court
because it failed to obtain the majority vote of eight (8) which is needed in
order to declare Section 2175 of the RAC to be unconstitutional. For this, the
petition filed by Pamil 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 was also pointed out (in the dissenting opinions) that how can one who
swore to serve the Churchs interest above 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, except those expressly disqualified
by the election code, are eligible to run for public office.